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

["Bruce Young" <bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

As do I.  Let's discuss this in the Panel list, turn it into a membership
poll and vote on pushing it to the membership.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!


| -----Original Message-----
| From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
| Sent: Wednesday, January 08, 2003 12:09 PM
| To: DPF; J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
| Cc: atlarge Discuss List
| Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...
|
|
| 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
|


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