Re: [atlarge-discuss] Panel mandate proposal

[eric@hi-tek.com]

Joop this is the mastery of a dotbomb.
sorry bro but this idea is a loser.
e

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Dear icannatlarge members,
>
> Before we throw ourselves into Nominations and an Election for a new Panel,
> we should first have an agreement on what the mandate for that Panel will be.
>
> I would like to set off an urgent discussion on this Mandate.
>
> Let me kick it off by stating  my own views:
>
> 1. Have a large Panel of 11 in charge of website content control and
> nothing will get done. Much better a Panel of 3 (or 5) and separate
> elections for other Offices of the organization.
>
> 2. It is possible to be accountable for a tight mandate, but much less for
> a broad one.
>
> 3. We need a division of Powers, checks and balances to prevent hijacking.
>
> Therefore I feel that the Panel should confine itself to web site
> management and web site content control and that the original name of the
> first "web site supervisory Panel" should be retained.
> The job is difficult enough, since the web site is our only common public
> mouthpiece with a potentially huge role in the organization.
> The events have shown that control over the host and the website can mean
> unilaterally determining content. (why was the forum axed, where is that
> Chuck Costello speech?)
>
> The Panel should be tied down, along with the webmaster,  by agreeing to a
> set of webmaster rules, part of our Bylaws as proposed and discussed in
> http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=262
>
> The Panel must elect itself a Chair based on the qualities a good chair
> must possess. This means it is not  automatically the most-voted Panel member.
> The  Panel Chair can not be the same person as the webmaster or hostmaster .
>
> Polling
> All matters of Polling the membership are outside the mandate of the
> website supervisory Panel.
>
> Polling is the area of responsibility of an elected Polling Commission that
> will serve as the trusted anchor of  control-by-the-membership.
> There is one directly elected Polling Officer in charge of the Polling
> interface.
> Members (3) of the Polling Commission cannot sit on the Panel or on the
> Executive.
>
> The Polling Committee has the right to take Polling initiatives and is
> responsible for the formulation of Polling Questions, Polling Options and
> Ballot texts and messages.
>
> A Polling Commission should be elected with the highest priority, higher in
> the bootstrap-order than the Website Panel.
> I will volunteer to boot this up by being the first unelected Polling
> Officer and then stand aside immediately for an elected PO with an initial
> mandate of 6 months.
>
> Executive
> Under the supervision of the newly elected Polling Commission a third
> election should then be held for an  Executive office of 3. (spokesperson,
> secretary and treasurer)
>
> It will be up to the Executive to carry out Incorporation, Bank Account,
> making statements on behalf of the members, representing the members at
> ICANN meetings, etc.
>
> The spokesperson is ex officio a member of the website supervisory panel,
> but cannot be its Chair.
>
> I see the above both as a set of Bylaw clauses and an essential and urgent
> to-do list.
>
> It could be done well within 6 months and it would result in a solid core
> of structure, not so easy to blow aside.
>
> On my 58th birthday,
>
> -joop-


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