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,

  Polls are a useful toll if used well and honestly.  They are or can also be
a divisive instrument to sway opinion in a direction that is other than
honest as well.  Erco, they can be used a s two edged sword.  Hence
for a reasonable chance for any poll to be a useful tool such polls must
be conducted by and totally independent professional polling organization.
However such polls cost $$, which ICANNATLARGE.ORG has almost
none of, if any at all.  Here enlies one of or most central and endemic
problems, FUNDING and a FUNDING method /plan...



Richard Henderson wrote:

> Yep, I agree.
>
> We need a membership vote to confirm their already expressed wish for new
> panel elections. Or else, what is left of the panel could call for them
> anyway, in consultation of course. But a large number of members want a new
> panel and we can't just ignore that.
>
> At the same time, we have gained some pretty strong indicators from last
> week's poll on other issues like the ICANN Ralos and the desire for polls to
> become a regular part of the decision-forming framework.
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 4:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] PROPOSAL: that an
> election is called for a new Panel
>
> > 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
> >
> >

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