[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Demand for Affirmative Action
Thank you James.
I reinforce your call for the Poll Booth to be put into action, with Judyth
Mermelstein's questions. I propose that the entire membership is e-mailed
direct with a link to the Poll Booth once Judyth's questions have been
placed there. Prior to this I ask the panel one more time for responses to
(a) the request to poll members on the RALOs issue (b) the request to poll
members on a range of 12 to 15 questions to assess real democratic wishes
and aspirations of our organisation. To date Vittorio (who to his credit
regularly engages via this list) has proposed we proceed with some kind of
poll AFTER the Christmas/ New Year period. Jefsey has made his usual
valuable contributions. Apart from that...
Not good enough. Joop, I think it's just about time to set a democratic
process in motion. Much of the panel seems to be in a state of inertia and
one more panel member has resigned. As far as I'm concerned, if we do not
get a panel vote on my previous proposal by this weekend then I fully
support the Poll Booth option. But really, my proposal does not go far
enough. I think Judyth's questions (and other members may add others
including a vote of confidence in the panel) should be sent to the whole
membership. I think this would be useful to clarify the goals and purposes
of this organisation.
Joop, in the event that we have no action from the panel by this weekend, I
support James's call and your administration of it through the Poll Booth
and I will be happy to personally e-mail every member on our membership
e-mail list to give them the questions and the link.
But I would still prefer it if the initiative came from the panel.
I'd like to publicly thank Vivek Durai for his participation and
contributions. I voted for him, have respected his comments and perspective
and his resignation is a true loss, though I'm glad Vivek will continue to
participate in his own way and in his own right.
Under the rules of the election July 27 to Aug 4th we now welcome Kimberley
Heitman as a panel member (as next highest candidate voted for) if she is
willing to step in. Failing that, the order is: Gabriel Pineiro, Milan
Kapetano, Marc Derriennic, Sotiris Sotiropoulos, Ted Byfield, Eric Dierker
and further candidates.
We have now lost 3 of the original 11 elected panel members.
Richard Henderson
----- Original Message -----
From: Jkhan <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>
To: 'Atlarge Discuss List' <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 5:57 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Demand for Affirmative Action
> TO ALL IcannatLarge.org Panel Members:
>
> I agree with Jefsey,
> >Now, the response is to build the responses in a way which makes sense.
>
> This, we see it progressing, though the booth proposition, though
> atlarge/ws, through the WGs.
>
> In other words he is saying: You and your Vote, Me and my Vote, side by
> side, collectively, Individually and Collectively. We can build a common
> house.
>
> The Panel *maybe* addressing the rights of a limited constituency, but
> the Panel has failed to address take affirmative action regarding my
> rights and that of a wider scope of the constituency, through its
> failure to act. Further the denial of the Panel to allow Myself and
> Other's 'right of the people peaceably to assemble' is a volition of my
> Constitutional Rights provided me by the US CONSTITUTION (See: US Const.
> Bill of Rights, Amendment I).
>
> Therefore, I endorse the Poll Booth's position as protected both right
> of expression and right of assembly. I recommend Judyth Mermelstein's
> first round of propositions be expressed via the Poll Booth. And demand
> immediate action as an exercise of my rights.
>
> Re:
>
> "... 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 fulfill 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.
>
> ..."
>
> Demand sayeth no more.
>
> James Khan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@club-internet.fr]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 6:09 AM
> To: Richard Henderson
> Cc: Atlarge Discuss List
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...
>
>
> On 20:53 06/01/03, Richard Henderson said:
> >If that means starting up a new panel or even a new organisation, so be
>
> >it.
>
> I am afraid I must object to that. The rationale that dreamers oppose to
>
> reality is "let do it again, may be next time will we succeed". The
> solution we find must stand. I do not see the Insurgent changing
> Washington
> because they did not get the US independence the first day and the way
> some
> of their dreamers wanted it to be. Inability of the panel to take the
> requested decisions should not be found first into its members (this
> would
> be to oppose democracy since we have been elected).
>
> The first question is "do the requested decisions make sense?". I think
> the
> panel behaves very well and has fully responded "they do not make sense,
>
> the way they are expected by some".
>
> Now, the reponse is to build the responses in a way which makes sense.
> This, we see it progressing, though the booth proposition, though
> atlarge/ws, through the WGs. We cannot build a common house without
> building blocks, or it will be castle in the air. So, let first organize
>
> the building blocks.
>
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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