[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] PROPOSAL: that an election is called for a new Panel

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

I understand your point Jefsey.

I'm hanging in with this panel, to try to represent the membership views. I
believe there is sufficient evidence that the membership wants a new Panel
now, not in July (when the next election is due).

However, I will abide by process, and the Panel has to decide this issue for
iself by majority decision. I'm just saying I believe the evidence indicates
our members want new elections, and I think we should respect that wish.

However, if you feel a private Poll is insufficient evidence, then I think
we should conduct an official vote to define this clearly to your
satisfaction.

I am just following the logic of >> bottom up democracy >> apparent wishes
of the majority >> defining those wishes (I think the Poll did this, but I'm
happy with a full vote) >> act on democratic wishes of membership

I can't see any just reason not to respond to what the membership wants, and
the Poll at least signals that they probably *do* want this.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-panel] PROPOSAL: that an election is called for a new
Panel


> Hmmm. May be can we keep cool one minute :-)
>
> At 20:21 08/02/03, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >I can see pro's and cons to electying a new panel now, but as far as I'm
> >concerned, it's what most of our participating members want, so -
>
> The majority of polled people (gallup) said they would prefer a new panel.
> But we have rules. If we start changing these rules because 17% of our
> members in a private poll said so....
>
> Now, this gives our Chair a clear indication of his duty: to call the next
> in line and publish asap (before a call for new election develops) the
list
> of the current panelists.
>
> >I PROPOSE: an election is called for a new Panel. I propose an eleven
> >member panel, as before. I propose that we allow ten days for
nominations.
> >Ten days for statements and questions. And ten days for voting and
> >corroboration.
>
> Richard, we have rules. And all this would only be a little bit earlier.
>
> >(At the same time I hope we will also vote through the establishment of
> >the Polling Booth as our official mechanism for polling members on
policy,
> >with the continuing facility for members to pose questions. And at the
> >same time I hope we will press forward with the development of a
selection
> >of mission statements.)
>
> This is contradirctory.
> We need a stable and active panel to decide about the booth. I would also
> clarify that question of wording between polling and voting. In French a
> vote is a decision, a poll is an information. Never understood the way you
> guys understand these words, but I know that a gallup (poll?) is not to
> make the law where I share.
>
> Now, you want to push for respecting the positions of the members and they
> just said they wanted to act by subsidiarity/capilarity or by
coordination.
> This means that they do not want any missino statement but a few
> organizations to develop their own mission statement and join under the
> umbrella of the panel to discuss a statement of cooperation (alliance) or
I
> did not understand it.
>
> This is rather unformal when compared to ICANN but comparable.
> Parties/local organizations are equivalent to Constituencies, Panel to
BoD,
> cooperation to the NC, the membership to the GA, but with real powers, the
> Panel being more a catalyst and an escalation.
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-panel-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-panel-help@lists.fitug.de
>
----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:47 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-panel] PROPOSAL: that an election is called for a new
Panel


> Hmmm. May be can we keep cool one minute :-)
>
> At 20:21 08/02/03, Richard Henderson wrote:
> >I can see pro's and cons to electying a new panel now, but as far as I'm
> >concerned, it's what most of our participating members want, so -
>
> The majority of polled people (gallup) said they would prefer a new panel.
> But we have rules. If we start changing these rules because 17% of our
> members in a private poll said so....
>
> Now, this gives our Chair a clear indication of his duty: to call the next
> in line and publish asap (before a call for new election develops) the
list
> of the current panelists.
>
> >I PROPOSE: an election is called for a new Panel. I propose an eleven
> >member panel, as before. I propose that we allow ten days for
nominations.
> >Ten days for statements and questions. And ten days for voting and
> >corroboration.
>
> Richard, we have rules. And all this would only be a little bit earlier.
>
> >(At the same time I hope we will also vote through the establishment of
> >the Polling Booth as our official mechanism for polling members on
policy,
> >with the continuing facility for members to pose questions. And at the
> >same time I hope we will press forward with the development of a
selection
> >of mission statements.)
>
> This is contradirctory.
> We need a stable and active panel to decide about the booth. I would also
> clarify that question of wording between polling and voting. In French a
> vote is a decision, a poll is an information. Never understood the way you
> guys understand these words, but I know that a gallup (poll?) is not to
> make the law where I share.
>
> Now, you want to push for respecting the positions of the members and they
> just said they wanted to act by subsidiarity/capilarity or by
coordination.
> This means that they do not want any missino statement but a few
> organizations to develop their own mission statement and join under the
> umbrella of the panel to discuss a statement of cooperation (alliance) or
I
> did not understand it.
>
> This is rather unformal when compared to ICANN but comparable.
> Parties/local organizations are equivalent to Constituencies, Panel to
BoD,
> cooperation to the NC, the membership to the GA, but with real powers, the
> Panel being more a catalyst and an escalation.
> jfc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >---
> >Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 27/01/03
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-panel-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-panel-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