[atlarge-discuss] Election hold-up Re: [atlarge-discuss] Correction re: Resultsfrom "URGENT: Guidance requested" mini-ballot

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 09:23 +0100 2003/03/18, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 2003 18:42:10 -0800, you wrote:
>
>>| Now please can we move on to a straightforward,
>>| one-person-one-vote election
>>| of *7* or *9* or *11* panel members?
>>
>>Agreed.  What is the hold-up?
>
>Yes, I can't understand it too. Is it a practical problem? Is it a
>policy one? Why don't we just have these elections as we all want?

Gentlemen, ladies,

The hold-up is simple. In the total absence of a proposal by
the (rump-)Panel acting as a unit to facilitate the process,
we have several possible methods of conducting the elections
and no decision as to which will be used.

1- Will it be by means of the Polling Booth under Joop's process
with Jan and Walter as "watchers"?

2- Will it be according to Jefsey's proposal, using the Polling
Booth but with his own administrative control and five
"watchdogs" who have met his criterion of enforced silence
on all issues related to the elections?

3- Will it be as suggested by Vittorio, using the application
he was going to develop and put on the ICANNATLARGE.ORG
(as opposed to .COM) site?

4- Will it be supervised by Elizabeth Porteneuve as a neutral
party who knows by experience how to run elections and can't
be accused of trying to influence the results?

The above alternatives are those included in the first
question at the Polling Booth, whose answer would be known
as of March 28th.

For that matter, though, there were also other suggestions:
mine set out a method for conducting an e-mail ballot, and
Jeff Williams listed several online voting applications
operated by companies not involved in the "atlargery".

Meanwhile, of course, there are other unresolved questions:

- Should the Panel consist of 7, or 9, or 11 as in the past?

- Should the Panel so elected be

  a) primarily a body to administer the Web site and lists?
  b) primarily a committee to draft a mission and bylaws
     and make recommendations about incorporating, all
     within two months (another question in the Polling Booth
     poll)?

or, yet again,

  c) an autonomous decision-making body whose decisions are
     binding on the membership?
  d) a body whose authority is vested solely in its Chair,
     who therefore has no obligation to wait for a Panel
     resolution before taking action?
  e) a body elected by the membership to administer the
     affairs of the organization on behalf of the members
     and therefore responsible for obtaining membership
     approval of any projected course of action?
  f) ....

Anyway, where we stand now is that a poll of the membership
has been launched in which (some but not all) members are
asked to choose between the four numbered options above
and also to decide whether it wants a Panel of 7 with a
specific mandate to produce bylaws in 60 days and whether
the membership list should be given in trust to Karl
Auerbach.

In the absence of any guidance or decision-making process
other than that poll, I can only assume

a) we will consider its results binding (since apparently
   only Abel Wisman and myself feel uncomfortable enough
   about the notion that Joop's own site and approach are
   being assumed to speak *for ICANNATLARGE.ORG* to be
   complaining about it)

B) we must hope it does choose a workable means for elections
   (of which the details to be worked out later by persons
   or a process unspecified)

c) it will either approve the specified mandate for the new
   Panel or leave the mandate underfined (whereupon we will
   have to discuss the matter further and presumably try
   again)

d) whatever happens, the current (rump-)Panel will either
   instruct me as to how the membership list should be used
   for the purposes of the election, or instruct me to
   turn it over to them or somebody else, or leave me to
   be guided in these things by the decision of those who
   care enough to express their opinions here.

The irony is that the difference between an effective Panel
and a completely ineffective one is so small -- just a
matter of working together in the best interests of the
organization as a whole and keeping the real work on schedule.
In effect, the Panel acts as "Chair" of the membership, and its
own Chair acts to keep the Panel meeting, discussing and
resolving away so as to further the goals of the group as a whole.

When that doesn't happen, one spends a year floundering in the
dark. When it does, needs and means are discussed, decisions
get made, and the real work progresses. Obviously, I much
prefer the latter.

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