Re: [atlarge-discuss] PASSED: ALAC/ALOC REPRESENTATIVES

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

  Good points here Richard!  Well done!  I see that you had you thinking
cap on this time.  Bravo!

  The resolution in question or being referred to has evidently passed
the Panal vote.  However the Panel acted outside of it's mandate
in doing so.  Hence as you rightly point out Richard, the members
must pass this proposed resolution before it becomes policy for
this organization.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> comments below
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
>
> Judyth's message included:
>
> I hereby formally request that the Panel
> - explain to the whole membership the procedure by which it would like to
> hold the consultations referred to in its resolution
> - obtain the consent of the membership to the procedure (with means of
> amendment) so as to adopt it as permanent policy
> - explain to the whole membership what their "views and policies" are
> - obtain the consent of the majority of members before the adoption of those
> views and policies as representing the voice of the organization
> - outline the reason why the Panel should select representatives from
> amongst the members volunteering rather than provide for the more-usual
> process of calling for nominations and subsequent calling of a vote
>
> Richard's reply begins here:
>
> Hello Judyth
>
> As the person who proposed the motion, let me say I'm not sure whether I got
> this one right. Being an ordinary human being who makes mistakes, its
> possible the motion needs further exploration. But I believe the OUTCOMES of
> the motion are desirable, and important to clarify.
>
> The background was a concern that anyone who purports to speak for our
> organisation in any conversations involving ICANN (and specifically any
> conversations involving ALAC/ALOC) should be mandated to do so, by our
> organisation.
>
> Personally, I'm pretty opposed to more than peripheral contacts with these
> 'fake' icann tricks anyway, because of the danger of legitimising their
> processes by our very presence. However, there is a case that can be made
> for having some kind of "protesting" presence - providing it really does
> protest, asserts that the real AtLarge voice is outside ALAC/ALOC, and
> continues to demand 9 AtLarge Board members, as previously proposed.
>
> With this in mind, and mindful of how easy it is for people involved in our
> group to get sucked into the ALAC/ALOC trap, I felt it was very important to
> propose a clear process for authorising who can actually state the
> Icannatlarge.org position. Basically, I wanted the opportunity to vote for a
> clearly protesting representative in any dealings and encounters we have,
> any interface we have, with ICANN. For example, Sotiris has his critics for
> being combative, but he is unequivocal in his opposition to ICANN's
> machinations, and he was originally asked to represent our organisation in
> its interface with ICANN. I would still endorse Sotiris for this task,
> because his very nature equips him well to represent us resiliently in a
> no-nonsense way with the smooth-talkers and tricksters at ICANN.
>
> However, you raise an important issue (as have others) as to whether a
> position like this should be appointed by the panel or by the whole
> membership. My (revised) view on this is as follows: if there is a clear
> groundswell of member opinion that they want to be involved in the
> decision-making process, then why on earth not let them/us? Because we are a
> democracy. Of course, in electing a panel, a degree of trust was invested in
> the people who were elected, and I believe that commonsense says there are
> some issues and decisions that can be taken by an entrusted panel unless the
> membership protests and says: Hey! No, you're overstepping your mandate or -
> we want a say ourselves in something as important as this.
>
> In this case, which involves the issues (a) should be have representatives
> participating in an interface with ICANN at all; and (b) is this a decision
> which frankly should be voted on by the membership as a whole... I think the
> panel needs to step back a moment (even though it's voted on it) and I think
> we need to maybe go back to issue (a) and determine how the real will of the
> whole membership can be properly represented, with regard to these ICANN
> interactions.
>
> Is there a prevailing view that we should have representatives "batting for
> us" around these ICANN tables?
>
> If we're not sure, should we find out?
>
> I really don't mind whether we decide on representatives by trusted panel
> vote or by membership vote, providing the outcome is a resilient opposition
> to ICANN's processes, ICANN's propositions, ICANN's false claims to be
> helping the At Large, and above all ICANN itself as it is now constituted,
> with wholly untrustworthy people in charge and in control.
>
> This is the background to my motion and how I think about it right now.
>
> There is no "conspiracy" as far as I'm concerned. And I'm not afraid of
> using democracy at every single decision point if necessary. That, however,
> would require support for a weekly voting process sent to all our members
> and it would undoubtedly be rather unwieldy and may put people off. I don't
> know. So we need our regular and serious particpants to let us know WHICH
> issues are really important to be voted on by the whole membership.
>
> Democracy: yes, and yes, and yes every single time (whether by elected panel
> or by membership vote).
>
> What is our position on representation and participation around tables with
> ICANN? That is the key question, isn't it? Unless we know this, then we are
> hardly in a position to choose the kind of people we want to represent us
> anyway.
>
> So I suggest we take some more time to think and talk this through, and
> meanwhile I wholeheartedly support Sotiris to carry on defending our
> position without really getting involved. he has done this well, and I'd
> also mention that he has been good at feeding back information to us.
>
> With regard to recent meetings at Shanghai etc, was Sotiris included in the
> loop? If we are to be consistent, then having asked him to represent us in
> this very sensitive interface, then it's essential he is fully involved.
> That is, if Sotiris himself wants to be, which I am supposing he does.
>
> Referring to your last point, Judyth, a process of nominations etc is indeed
> appropriate. Up until now our decision making on some of these functions has
> been fairly informal and we've "just got on with it". I don't think that was
> with the deliberate intention of by-passing or avoiding democratic will. But
> we are an evolving organisation, learning as we go along. I think we need
> the support of people like yourself to introduce us to the necessary rigours
> that are necessary to protect democratic will, maintain transparency in
> decisions, and demand democratic accountability.
>
> But how do you decide on what to vote on as a panel and what to vote on as a
> membership? It's a genuine question. We need a process for that to - maybe
> the membership should be able to call for a whole vote if a certain number
> of people request it? More importantly, panel members should be careful not
> to overstep their mandate. We probably need to look again at that mandate,
> define or re-define that.
>
> But these are matters which don't address your immediate concern - the
> motion. Well we need to talk constructively about this together, to work as
> FRIENDS towards agreement.
>
> Richard
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



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