[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Poll: Do you want to join a Party?

At 05:40 p.m. 11/02/2003, you wrote:

Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> At 03:58 a.m. 9/02/2003, you wrote:
> >Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> You are right. Some of the countries I mention might still manage to offend
> someone.
> However, I venture that those who are offended by faraway church-going
> Tonga are in a very tiny minority indeed. :)
> Let's just pick the least offensive on a list.
>
> -joop-


OK...now a question that's a little more direct and probing.  How do you
reconcile Richard's interpretation of the polling outcome (which, by and
large, I agree with, even though my votes didn't count) that our organization
should have nothing whatever to do with ICANN's RALOs; with your own
self-nomination to ICANN's Nominating Committee?

"Trust me and let's leave it at that?"

Jan,

I think it is high time for direct and probing questions. All around.

I think Jefsey is on the right track wanting to separate the services of the Polling Booth from ICANNatlarge involvement.
I will have to do something like a Polling Booth Foundation, from which I am disconnected, or perhaps a democratic Polling Booth club, which would itself be a model for a small cyber-democracy.

I was also surprised that so many people wanted me to sit on the NomCom, (83%) while they know what it is intended to do.
I cannot think of something more potentially frustrating :-(
But it tallied with the percentages (51% vs. 14% that wanted us to be a constituency elsewhere) that want us to be "an ICANN constituency". See Jefsey's Q. "Mission Options".
http://www.icannatlarge.com/results-morfin1.htm
(this is one area where I would like to see following-up questions)

I drew the conclusion that it was time to put ALAC to the test.
If they reject an independent like me, nothing has changed. No more trouble to make the choice.
But if they would accept me, they would take the same chances as they took in 2000, when the last Board election was held. Something might change.

It *would* mean an opportunity for input in ICANN in the form of all-important weight on the Board.
Too little, yes.
But persuasion and the harsh realities of an Internet Treaty may do the rest, slowly.

The Voters are not inconsistent.
They want to be an ICANN constituency. A global one, just like ICANN itself , not a RALO'd one.
They want to have someone on the NomCom, who they can trust to be consistent with what he has said over the last 5 years. Googled.

I would want that too, especially if it didn't have to be myself.

I have no idea if I would be the best person to serve, but I think the best thing would be for the icannatlarge Constituency to answer these questions:
1. Would you like to hold an election for your Representative on the NomCom?
Yes/No/ immediately/ within 6 months/depends who are the candidates
2. Would you agree with an open Nomination process in the web Forum and on the discuss list? Yes/No/immediately/don't care how

I would agree in advance that I would vacate the seat (IF the Board ever gave it) in favor of the person elected.
I would love to see an elected person get into the NomCom and I would love to see ICANN accept it.

"Trust me"?
Trust no-one and make sure that you can always remove them from the seats they occupy in your name.



-joop-



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