[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...

On 05:24 08/01/03, DPF said:

On Wed, 08 Jan 2003 13:35:44 +1300, Joop Teernstra
>Both Jefsey and David have sound idea's that are valuable. Both should be
>able to work together and come to a good compromise. We would all benefit.
I've got no problems with Jefsey's ideas.  He just seems to react
badly when you do not agree with him.
Dear all,
we still are where we have always been and as long as we do not want to spend two days on voting about it (not to decide but to count who/how many are where), and we can aggregate appropriately, we will still be here ten years from now).

Again.

1 Question "where" :
- there are those who want to be a structural force within ICANN
- there are those who want to be a influential force on ICANN from their outside action
- there are those who want to build outside of ICANN

2. Question "what":
- there are those who want to build a constituency (IDNH; @large, SMEs)
- there are those who want to be a large organization
- there are those who want to lobby

3. Question "how":
- there are those who want to be global (American, ie universal: one single leading organization)
- there are those who want to be coordinated (a few actions and a lot of vote)
- there are those who want to be global (European, ie all the independent parts of the world together : subsidiarity, capillarity, consensus)

4. Question "structure"
- there are those who want to incorporate to get a BoD, bylaws, banking account, tax deduction
- there are those who want to get a structured organizations to increase their force for action
- there are those who consider that structures are to be ad hoc tools to serve action

Comments:
- each of the positions has cons and pros and followers and opponents
- most of us share in parts most of the propositions
- par of us are pragmatic and swell, some are dogmatic and rigid, many are mixed and most are bored.


IMHO we will go nowhere if we do not proceed step by step. Imposing/forcing solutions as I objected will not mechanically work. Again, I agree it could work in standard space, but not in cyberspace: people would just fade away. We can only build on interest and trust. We cannot force anything. Only ICANN can because they have physical assets (money, contracts).

1. there is absolutely no loss of power and standing for the panel, with Joop setting up a booth@large group. If some are worried about that risk, I will set-up a WG-Booth as the other WGs (I only note that there is no one working on WG-Web or WG-ByLaws, only on WG-DNS for what we need).

2. there would be a conflict should Joop oppose Vittorio. What is not the case. I accept that Judyth questions can be challenging, and that I am happy with Richard's questions I seconded. So, here is what I propose before we have no more Panelist:

- Joop organizes the booth the way he wants for it to look serious and we can vote in clicking mails. I would really thank Vivek to share with him in this endeavor.

- the Panel members will write the questions they want: every Panelist can ask one or ten question. No vote on that so every question can be risen and it is clear it is a Gallup and no a vote. So we know where we stand. We use the booth for that Gallup.

- with that elements, the Panel Members (with the active help of the Members) write one or several mission statements - again everyone can propose, the Panel is used as channel to avoid too many propositions (hope fully one or two). That mission statement will come by topic and we will vote topic by topic, and possibly the author may adapt the text of a topic further on, to follow a general feeling. That vote would use the booth as half a vote/half a Gallup. IMHO the trunk of the document will be quite easy to adopt but there are parts which may rise debates.

- then Vittorio can call on a global vote, the way he wants (the DNSO or the booth) to endorse the mission statement, hopefully with the largest support giving back some momentum to the whole process.

As a panelist I am ready to join forces with others to call for that action now. This is only what the Chair has proposed with the additions that Joop's offer permits if it is managed in common.

jfc












  As I've said many times I am
just keen for some progress to be made - I don't care too much about
where it comes from.

>If you are both truly anti-fascists, you will agree on a good set of Rules
>that will hold the "leaders" in check, distribute the "power" , make sure
>that the membership can always replace its' "leadership" with one of its
>democratic choice.

Not at all.  What one needs very much so the last one - the ability to
elect and recall leadership.  Whether or not you have a "strong" or
"weak" Board is a matter of legitimate opinion.

Personally I prefer a Board that can actually do things but a built in
mechanism that allows the membership to veto decisions if enough
members object - I believe that works far better than having several
competing power blocs.

>(The Charter that David proposed is perhaps a bit too prone to irreversible
>capture. More discussion on it is needed and I would caution against rushed
>implementation)

I don't necessarily advocate the charter I wrote.  The summary one
done by Michael Geist is fine also.  In fact most of the proposed
charters are fine - I am more interested is us having a process so
that one of them can get selected rather than which one it is.

>So far, the only agreement we find among *our* members is that they agreed
>enough with the contents of the original website to associate their name
>with it and sign up as an icannatlarge member. They also agreed with the
>election of a Supervisory Panel for the website.

The 2nd set of elections was for far more than just a website
supervisory panel IMO.

>I am offering the use of a reasonably secure Polling Facility.
>I can see that there is considerable concern about  how the polling
>questions will be phrased. It is very difficult not to phrase them in a
>"leading" way, consciously or sub-consciously.
>
>Either we leave this task to a 3 man Polling Commission, or we allow a
>hundred questions, where all built-in bias will cancel out.
>
>I am willing to help bootstrapping a Polling Commission by taking
>Nominations and prepare for an election in the Polling Booth.

I 100% oppose this.  For all its faults we do have an elected panel
and they are the only ones with authority to call votes.  It may take
longer and be frustrating but is preferable to unmandated action.

>(this Polling Commission is not your "executive".  All it does is be open
>to the membership and pass on Polling Questions, both from the executive
>down and from the grassroots up,  to a membership that *wants* to be polled.
>As its purpose is to create a division of Power, Polling Commissioners
>cannot serve the icannatlarge in any other capacity)

This is fine if the charter allows for it but until we have a charter,
the only authority is the panel.  If we do not like it we can set up
our own organisation from scratch and try to recruit members for it.

>Along with this election, for the convenience of the members, will also be
>presented the (seconded) questions of Richard and the (modified) questions
>of Judyth.

As I have stated some of the questions are wildly biased and to hold
an unauthorised poll on them would not be productive IMO.

>I am not keen on administering the election myself and would like a
>volunteer bootstrap Polling Officer to receive an admin account in the
>Polling Booth until the Polling Commission is elected and appoints its own
>Polling Officer.

The DNSO Secretariat has run all previous votes for us very
efficiently and I see no reason to not keep using them.

DPF
--
E-mail: david@farrar.com
ICQ:    29964527
MSN:    dpf666@hotmail.com

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



---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.427 / Virus Database: 240 - Release Date: 06/12/02



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