Re: [atlarge-discuss] election or disbanding

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 17:58 +0100 2003/03/16, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>Dear Internet Governance At Large Members,
>the situation of this group is such that I hink we may do three things:
>
>1. accept that Judyth and Jan have been manipulated by Vittorio in
>closing
>the shop and disband.

Forgive me, Jefsey, but I really and truly must object!

Vittorio may have sent the list and FTP access information
to Jan and myself "on behalf of the Panel" but without its
authorization. However,
- he has communicated with neither of us since then except
  what you've seen on the list;
- he did not tell us what to do with the list (not that
  we'd have listened if he had);
- he resigned as Chair and member of the Panel, so he
  hasn't interfered with any decisions the remaining
  Panelists might have chosen to make.

As for Jan and myself, we both consider that the list and
FTP information belong to ICANNATLARGE.ORG as a group, not
any individual member of it, and we have no intention of
misusing it.

Quite the contrary, in fact -- we've asked the group (or as
much of it as we can reach via this mailing list) to tell
us what it wants us to do. Although not many took part in
my informal ballot, those who did came out clearly in
favour of new elections and authorized us to use the
membership list for that purpose alone.

It is obvious that once a new election had been held, there
would be a new Panel in place which would then be the
collective custodian of the membership list and would (I
hope!) administer the affairs of this group rather better
than the last one did.

In the interim, if people preferred that Jan and I *not*
have the information, all they had to do was say "discard
the file" or "keep it unopened as a backup", and they
could even now say that or tell us to give the information
to somebody they trusted more.

The names of Karl Auerbach and Elizabeth Porteneuve were
suggested as "keeper of the list" and neutral "president
of elections", respectively, and I'd certainly not object
to that. In fact, I'd be thrilled not to have this burden
*or* the accusations you've been levelling at me as if
I were proposing to run the elections and run as a
candidate and run everybody else out of the group!

>2. forget, forgive and start anew, on different premises; but I doubt
>many
>would be excited after the WG-Review, IDNO and the icannatlarge.org
>experiences.
>3. create a survival committee to organize elections and present a
>position
>statement for RIO.
>
>I am ready to try that third way. To organize elections there are two
>possiblities, either a neutral and legitimate team, or an all parties
>co-management. For whatever reason, the first solution being denied to
>us,
>the second solution is to be our solution.

I'm not sure why you think a neutral election process is
impossible, but I'd be very interested to know what you
mean by an "an all parties co-management". Assuming it
involves some reasonable measures to let all members know
what the process is and how to participate, I'd be all
in favour.

>I therefore propose that we nominate who we want, or autonominate
>ourselves, and that those who accept to be Panelist Candidates enter
>an
>Election Committee Pact to elect a Panel. Since we are denied our own
>list,
>we will use whatever list we have. The committee will decide. It will
>also
>decide the voting method.

Now I'm confused again. Who is "denying you your own list"?

I presume you mean me but, as I've said before, I am not
convinced it's your own personal list to use as you please.

I *am* convinced that all it would take to get me to hand the list
over to somebody else is an agreement by more than one or two
members that it should be done. Bruce Young and Eric Dierker
are still Panelists along with you; all it would take is one
of them agreeing that you are to have the list and run the
election yourself ... but that didn't happen. Nor did any but
a small minority of those who voted in my ballot say "give
the list to Jefsey" or "give the list to Joop".

>If such a Committee is formed, I will be a candidate to join it. If a
>neutral third party is then requested to coorganize the vote, I will
>be
>glad abandonning such a candidacy to that end.

If the members here gathered can agree to form such a committee,
that would be great. If they can agree on a neutral third party,
that would be great, too.

Meanwhile, it seems logical for this group to decide what, if
any, use it wants to make of Joop's Polling Booth while we're
waiting. Joop has drafted some of his own questions, I've
suggested a resolution -- which, by the way, would transfer
responsibility for our Web site to the WG-Web *as a committee*,
not to its (ex-?) Chair who apparently wasn't as much interested
in Chairing the committee as making decisions about the site
on his own -- but I am certainly open to amendments or other
ideas, and so, I'm sure, is Joop.

So, the question is now on the table: what questions, if any,
do people here want to ask in the next round of polling?
(N.B. The "watchdogs" for Joop's polls are Jan Siren and
Walter Schmidt. I am, for want of a better term, a copy editor
for the questions but not a "watchdog".)

As you know, Jan had already undertaken to compare Joop's list
with Vittorio's and found that they correspond pretty closely
except for the last 18-20 registrants on Vittorio's list. (If
anyone has strong objections to the comparison of the two, they
should have spoken up before.)

Meanwhile, Joop has taken the approach of asking people on
his list to "opt-in" if they want election notices and ballots.
His "voters' list" will therefore be somewhat shorter than the
ICANNATLARGE.ORG list which contains all registered members.

Presumably as this group decides when and how it will run
its elections, it will also decide how to notify the membership
that nominations are open (for the Panel; possibly also for
the Election Committee Jefsey's suggesting?) and whom they
should contact if they want to be candidates.

Until then, I'm still holding a virgin copy of Vittorio's list
in case it's needed, and hoping very much that this group will
indeed proceed to prepare for elections.

Regards,

Judyth

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



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