Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Focused Mission Statement (was:point of order)

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I do not like splitting it.  Unless our panel cannot get anything done because of polarization.
Two distinct "parties" are good. It keeps us balanced.

I think if we go back to my original mission statement with an addition of slashes adding I after we and
democratic after voting mechanism we all belong here.  please, united we stand and divided we fall.

Eric

Micheal Sherrill wrote:

> Hello Ron:
>
> I was agreeing with the gist of Joop's message rather than seconding any argument.  No offense meant.
>
> Regards,
>
> Micheal Sherrill
> ---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
> From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
> Date:  Tue, 15 Oct 2002 12:39:03 +1300
>
> At 08:54 a.m. 14/10/2002 -0400, Ron Sherwood wrote:
> >Good morning, Joop:
> >
> >     I did not suggest that we abandon democracy.  Your response using that
> >premise has generated a lot of mail, but does not correctly characterize my
> >post.
>
> Good morning to you too Ron,
>
> I am sorry if my strong suggestion *not* to abandon democracy gave in any
> way the impression that you suggested otherwise.
>
> My plea for a focused mission  statement was as much a response to to
> Richard's post  as it was to yours.
>
> >     Your recognition that there are two factions within the membership that
> >have opposing views on the methodology we should adopt to achieve our goals
> >prompted my response. What I suggested was that we do not have to be so
> >inflexible that we adopt a single measure that alienates one group of
> >members in favor of another.
>
> Two sayings spring to mind: "soft doctors make stinking wounds" and "good
> fences make good neighbours".
>
> If the two groups part amicably now, each can be the kernel of a new ,
> focused and stronger entity in cyberspace.   The hundred- or- so lurkers on
> this list are certainly not the final figure of those who eventually can be
> persuaded to get involved.
>
> We can help each other at many turns, make joint statements, etc. , etc.
>
> But I think each group needs a different structure in order to be effective.
>
> >    The goal as I understand it, is at-large participation in management of
> >the Internet as a global resource.
>
>   I hope something like that  that came across in what I proposed as a
> mission statement, except that  "management of the Internet" is a bit wider
> that what I would see as the area of focus for At Large participation.
>
> >     Let us assume that the majority of our membership is in favor of our
> >organization addressing ICANN and Internet governance from a standpoint of
> >massive external consensus, having sufficient weight to demand meaningful
> >participation (or by creating a DNS system that bypasses ICANN altogether).
> >The creation and management of such a group could prove to be extremely
> >difficult, and the time-line to success extremely long.
>
> I am very reluctant to speculate what the majority of our current
> membership is in favour of unless I see a clear and unambiguous poll
> prepared under the responsibility of *elected* Polling officers.
> No  leading polling questions and no ad-hoc appointments of watchdogs that
> end up functioning as Polling Officers. (no offence meant to those who did
> a job as best they could)
>
> >     Now suppose that a smaller group of members is in favor of working from
> >within, or at least working with, ICANN to achieve the same goal.  What is
> >wrong with our organization adopting both modus operandi as a dual strategy?
>
> The problem is that working with ICANN may require compromises. It *will*
> require that our organization is focused on a nomination- and election
> process of worthy Board members for ICANN (no compromise on that).
> It *is likely  to* require a different organizational structure and
> different Bylaw provisions.
>
> As such a "dual strategy" presents unsurmountable problems.
>
> >The membership can vote democratically to approve either method or both.
> >This is not an abandonment of democracy, it is an inclusive solution rather
> >than an exclusive one.
>
> I respect this point of view and again I am sorry if anyone thought that I
> questioned your commitment to member-democracy.
> It is simply my experience that multi-party democracy works better (is more
> democratic?) than one-party democracy.
>
> As it is, Richard has already indicated a preference of action:
>
> >|  The name of our organisation has been decided, but the
> >|  fundamental structure
> >|  of our web presence should be built around www.atlarge.org
> >|
> >|  Richard
>
> --Joop
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
> *************************************************
>  Listen to the "World's Classical Radio Station"
>             http://www.beethoven.com
> Great Music, Free Email, Exciting Bulletin Board!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de