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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Richard and all,

  Richard, with all due respect, we didn't need a poll to figure out that the
members as greatly dissatisfied with the present Panel and even more
dissatisfied with that Panel's lack luster to poor performance.

  What we may need a poll for is to determine if that Panel should or
needs to be replaced now or wait until July and what the actual
specific duties and work areas that Panel should or needs to concentrate
it's efforts upon.  The rest of the work, policies and interactive
endeavors of this membership can and should be handled by the members
themselves collectively or independently with the rest of the members
stated and documented/voted upon approval...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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