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

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

Excellent analysis and excellent proposal.

I second.

----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: DPF <david@farrar.com>
Cc: atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 7:07 PM
Subject: 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


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