RE: [atlarge-discuss] The coming election

[bruce@barelyadequate.info]

Richard Henderson wrote:

| I am looking forward to:
|
| (a) Confirmation that new elections will go ahead at the earliest
| opportunity
| (b) Use of Polling system to define terms of these elections
| (c) The elections
| (d) A new panel which will subordinate itself to the policies
| defined by its membership

Agreed.

| I will be seeking candidates who will collectively stand for
| election on this principle of "the membership determining policy
| through regular use of the Polling process, and a panel
| which is subordinated to the decisions of the membership".

Agreed.  However, I feel that polling should be conducted both via Joop's
Polling Booth, and via an e-mail based voting system, to accomodate member
preferences.  Some people prefer e-mail (or are limited to e-mail as their
only reliable access!); while others hate e-mail, and would rather deal with
a Web-based forum. We should accomodate both.

| Coupled with this, I will be seeking the right of every
| member to submit questions worded as they see fit, and a
| democratic process for prioritising these questions, based
| on selection *by the members* - NOT by the panel or a
| polling commission.

I don't disagree. But we need some kind of curb on frivilous questioning, to
ensure the questions asked are of interest to our membership and the polling
system doesn't generate a lot of "noise."   Perhaps require fourm/mail list
support by a "magic number" of members before it goes into a poll?

| I will not be seeking election to the panel myself, because I want
| to operate from the membership itself, which should hold the actual power
for decision making.
| actual power for decision making.

However, you may get elected anyway!  :)  We need your voice.

| I have not left this organisation, but I am seeking a "bottom
| up" democratic process for it.

Wasn't that the goal from the beginning?  My concern is that, even though
everyone has been talking "bottom up," we've seen very little participation
from the "bottom" (i.e. the rank-and-file membership).  I've gotten the
sense that most members are looking to others to act.  Conversely, even
though the group has been looking to the panel to "produce," every time a
panel member takes the initiative to create something they are accused of
being dictatorial!  I think what we need is more member involvement, with
the panel members serving solely as facilitators, to keep people on topic
and polite.

This is particularly necessary if we are to solve our two greatest
challenges: incorporation (including mission statement, bylaws and legal)
and outreach (actively politicking for membership and *funding!*).  I've
always been ready to surge forward on the latter, but we can't procede with
outreach until we are a legal entity.

Hopefully, the results of our pending election will determine what our
mission is.  Then we need a team of volunteers from the membership with a
legal background to put a base set of bylaws together that meets the minimum
necessary to make us legal -- we can always add to them later to add the
internal controls we need! -- and get us incorporated.  I have no preference
as to where: the US, France and Switzerland have been mentioned before, but
*anywhere* will do as long as we *do* it!


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



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