Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes about to be called

["Ron Sherwood" <sherwood@islands.vi>]

Good morning, Joop:

    If I have read your message correctly, you see icann-at-large as the
custodian of a place in which parties (organizations) meet to determine
their common ground.  You described our organization as "an empty building".

    Joop, why would I (or anyone else, for that matter) want to be a member
of an empty building?  Or even a shareholder in the ownership of a building
that houses real people who make real decisions and take real actions?
Should I, and the rest of our membership, not be involved in one or more of
the parties, rather than simply owning the building.

Regards, Ron

----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
To: "Walter Schmidt" <walts@dorsai.org>; "Ron Sherwood"
<sherwood@islands.vi>
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>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:26 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votes
about to be called


> 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