[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes about to be called
- To: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>, Ron Sherwood <sherwood@islands.vi>
- Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes about to be called
- From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 15:26:24 +1300
- Cc: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>, Wg-bylaws@icann-at-large.org, "The AtLarge Panel Eleven -- Bruce (PM) Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>, "Edmundo (PM) Valenti" <emv@southtech.com.ar>, "Hans (PCh) Klein" <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>, "James (PM) Love" <james.love@cptech.org>, "J-F C. (Jefsey) (PM) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>, "Michael (PM) Geist" <mgeist@uottawa.ca>, "Satyajit (PM) Gupta" <icheckemail@indiatimes.com>, "Vittorio (PM) Bertola" <vb@vitaminic.net>, "Vivek (PM) Durai" <vivek@vivekdurai.com>, "YJ (PM) Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>, Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
- Delivered-to: mailing list atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
- In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.10.10301151127200.19309-100000@amanda.dorsai.org>
- List-help: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de>
- List-post: <mailto:atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
- List-subscribe: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-subscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- List-unsubscribe: <mailto:atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de>
- Mailing-list: contact atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de; run by ezmlm
- References: <009101c2bcae$abec80d0$6501a8c0@RON>
At 05:47 a.m. 16/01/2003, Walter Schmidt wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Ron Sherwood wrote:
> The decision to stay within the ICANN structure (top-down) or to
> endeavor to represent the grass roots (bottom-up) is so fundamental
> that we must make a choice.
...yes, at the Committee not the organization level.
Sorry, but no committee carries such a mandate. And I would never give
such a mandate to untested and unproven people.
Each individual member is to be offered the choice to which party (s)he
wants to belong. It is a democratic right. Self-elected Party leaders
decide whether to RALO or not.
The members are offered a chance to follow who they agree with and help
them structure accountable leadership.
> There is no reason why the membership cannot participate in one or the
> other or both of two separate organizations with these opposing views.
> Nor is there any reason why two organizations cannot coordinate their
> goals and work closely together...
...yes, however, I thought we were organizing the entity that would
represent the atlarge - not just ONE of the organizations...
"We" have to organize the umbrella organization, where all parties can
speak in proportion to their membership, and the parties have to organize
themselves.
> But, I cannot see any way that we can realistically accommodate the
> wishes of these two diametrically opposed constituencies, and still
> democratically vote on anything.
...And I can.
So can I. The way to do it is the way democratic nations have solved this
problem: by accommodating a multiplicity of self-structured political
parties according to parliamentary rules.
For the moment I see icannatlarge.org as an empty building.
So, we either want to represent the atlarge, or we want to represent just
the atlarge-who-think-only-one-way.
Hmm. The umbrella organization does not "represent" the At Large. It is the
place where the representatives of the At Large can come together to
establish what they have in common.
-joop-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de