Re: [atlarge-discuss] Our Task List and Status...

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I like this idea a lot, Judyth. I think it is a very positive and democratic
proposal.

If what matters is truly what the membership wants, then this "turning
point" might be a very good moment to poll our entire membership on a wide
range of issues and opinions.

I would be perfectly happy to send out a poll with a dozen questions (if
this happened just occasionally) and I think if we did this, we should
include proposed questions from OUTSIDE the panel itself.

Why should we be afraid of the membership itself framing some of the
questions?

Why should we be afraid of the membership saying exactly what it thinks on a
range of issues?

Of course, people will argue that we will "put members off" if we "waste
their time" by getting them to have to vote on so many issues. My response
would be that if they're not interested enough to vote like this, say, once
every six months, then they're probably not really committed to this project
anyway. Besides, votes are not mandatory.

Democracy is so often sidelined by politicians, by delegates, by committees,
all of whom "think they know better".

But I support Judyth's proposal.

"Let the people speak!"

That's what this organisation is all about, after all.

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Our Task List and Status...


> At 22:58 +0000 2002/12/29, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >[snip]
> >Our mission statement and bylaws need to be developed IN THE CONTEXT
> >of our
> >relationship to the ICANN agenda and RALOs. If our organisation
> >intends to
> >help build up the ICANN Ralos, then it will need one set of statements
> >and
> >bylaws (and I will offer it little or no support and start mobilising
> >other
> >groups). If our organisation recognises its mission to lead the way to
> >an
> >external At Large with its own independent structures and agenda - an
> >umbella coalition of internet users and groups OUTSIDE Icann's
> >machinations - then it will need a different mission statement and
> >bylaws
> >which match its aims. In this second case, I would be ready to be
> >actively
> >involved.
>
> Precisely, and I am in the same position as Richard -- there is no
> point at all in my remaining part of this group if all it wants to
> do is play the ICANN game, since I don't believe for a moment that
> anything can be achieved that way or that those who want to play
> it are interested in what the worldwide Internet user community
> actually wants.
>
> >I therefore renew my PROPOSAL for a ballot of all members, and invite a
> >panel member to second this motion, so that we can establish clarity
> >about
> >what the membership REALLY sees as our mission.
> >
> >PROPOSAL:
> >to poll our entire membership on whether they (A) want the group to
> >help
> >build up ICANN's Ralos and structures... or (B) want the group to form
> >a
> >coalition with its own structures OUTSIDE the Icann scheme, in clear
> >opposition to the fake At Large that Icann is trying to develop as a
> >public
> >relations stunt.
> >
> >This wording and this choice is what I would like the membership to
> >vote on.
> >
> >It is a clearcut choice. I do not believe personally that we can (or
> >>should) do both.
>
> I'm not a Panel member but have been distressed by the lack of action
> on Richard's original call for a ballot. Without a clear mandate from
> the membership as to which direction this group wants to pursue,
> there is no way for the Panel or the WG-Bylaws to reach agreement
> on what the incorporated organization should be or how it should
> operate. If there are 1000+ registered members, then every one of
> them -- not just those who post here or in a forum -- must be asked
> what they want so as to determine the majority's preference. I find
> it rather scandalous that our Panel seems reluctant to find out what
> that is.
>
> Unlike Richard, though, I think the question on the ballot might
> be better phrased more neutrally. Perhaps if we are for some
> reason reluctant to allow voting more than twice a year, this
> ballot should include a clear choice among the various mission
> statements proposed to date and another set of choices such as:
>
> This organization should be an umbrella-group for
> national and regional "At Large" constituencies
> representing Internet users to ICANN and other
> bodies but operating independently of such bodies. __ Yes  __ No
>
> This organization should organize the Regional At
> Large Organizations (RALOs) called for under ICANN's
> new structure so as to work within the system      __ Yes  __ No
>
> This organization should incorporate in the
> United States as a 501C3 not-for-profit
> organization so as to offer tax deductions to
> potential U.S. donors.                             __ Yes  __ No
>
> This organization should incorporate itself
> as an international organization to represent
> the interests of all Internet users, notwithstanding
> possible ineligibility for tax-deductible charity
> status of its mission.                             __ Yes  __ No
>
> This organization should conduct a yearly election
> for Board members who will then decide what the
> organization will be and do without further input
> from the membership.                               __ Yes  __ No
>
> This organization should exist to carry out the
> policy decisions made by its membership through
> periodic electronic ballots; its Board should be
> responsible for organizing such ballots as needed
> and carrying out the policies so determined.       __ Yes  __ No
>
> Representatives of this organization will be
> appointed on an ad hoc basis by its Board.         __ Yes  __ No
>
> Representatives of this organization will be
> elected by a vote of the membership to serve a
> set term or fulfil a specific mandate.             __ Yes  __ No
>
>
> Since it appears that opportunities for members to have any input
> in what is or isn't done will be few under the current system,
> I think we need to learn as much as possible about what the
> members actually do want by means of what may well be the only
> ballot permitted before election time rolls around again.
> In the absence of such a ballot, I see no future for this
> group at all.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Judyth
>
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> "Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
> ##########################################################
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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