Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of trust/distrust: result

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

Richard and all,

  Perhaps I am misunderstood.  I agree that the poll taken was
an accurate enough indication that there is a need for a replacement
of the Panel members ASAP.  I don't agree that the Poll Joop
took shows good judgment, or was taken is such a way as to be
legitimate.

  BTW, as I have said before, along with many other members
that are actively participating, there was no need for a poll to
determine that the Panel needs immediate replacement.  That was
already pretty clear long ago now...

  Back to the poll or polling situation for this fledgling organization..

  We need independent auditing and conducting of any Polls
that we decide to take if such polls are to be taken seriously
and considered reasonably accurate or an accurate reflection of
the will of those participating in them.  We don't have that
right now, and Joops poll was not an exception.  I had
already outlined the two best options open to us as to how
to achieve such a small goal.  However as has been the situation
in the past, Joop is not likely to agree to turning over all
of the "Polling Booths" software, database and Keys in order
to achieve the second option that earlier suggested.  This leaves
us with the first option, that being having polls done professionally,
which will require some funding which we do not currently have
in sufficient quantities as far as I can tell or know of...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Then ask the same questions "formally" to the membership!
>
> The issue is defining what the membership actually wants.
>
> I trust Joop's integrity and I believe the Poll was honestly run and gave us
> strong indications of what our membership actually wants.
>
> But if you want a more thorough confirmation of what has been said by 171 of
> our members, then ask the same questions again, and do it better!
>
> But don't use the informality of Joop's Poll to IGNORE what the membership
> feels. Don't IGNORE the wishes of our members.
>
> The complaints about the "unofficial" nature of the Poll are just a
> smokescreen for not facing up to the wishes of the members. I don't actually
> think you want to avoid the truth of what members want, Jeff, but there are
> those who do. What Joop achieved through the Poll was a "first step" to
> giving our members real control over the direction of our organisation.
>
> The members are not wrong to express their opinions.
>
> The solution, if you want a fuller process, is to ask the same questions
> again *in a fuller process*.
>
> The WRONG thing to do would be to ignore the substantial statement by a
> large part of our participating membership. Remember, that participating
> membership appears to be around 170 people. 170 people voted in the "formal"
> vote on our name. 171 people voted in the Poll last week.
>
> So don't tell me that most of our active members didn't voice their opinion.
> But if you doubt it, just run a formal vote on the same questions!
>
> You will find:
>
> The members want - the right to ask and answer questions in regular polls;
> an election for a new Panel; the promotion of a worldwide umbrella At Large
> structure OUTSIDE Icann, and NOT the Icann RALOs. And by a huge majority
> they do not trust the ICANN At Large initiative.
>
> ASK the MEMBERS!!!!!
>
> Stop avoiding their opinions!!!!!
>
> ASK them to repeat what they've already said, and ACT on their WISHES!!!!!
>
> Richard Henderson
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
> To: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
> Cc: Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.co.nz>; atlarge discuss list
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 9:34 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] The list - atlarge vote of
> trust/distrust: result
>
> > Vittorio and all,
> >
> >   Well isn't that just dandy!  Bad move Joop...  :(
> >
> >   The problem here is obvious I would think.  I wouldn't care if Jesus
> > ran the vote, unless it was independently audited for this type or
> > voting,
> > than the results are very questionable...  We have all seen how poorly
> > the former DNSO GA votes were "Watchdoged" and are not very
> > trusting in this sort of nonsense...
> >
> >   Good question Andy!  Well done!
> >
> > Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2003 13:25:54 -0600, you wrote:
> > >
> > > >Who ran the vote? Was it audited by anyone?
> > >
> > > Answers are: Joop Teernstra, and no.
> > > --
> > > vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
> > > -------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > 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
> >
> >

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