Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: A Possible ICANN Plan...030317ii

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 12:23 -0800 2003/03/19, Jeff Williams wrote:
>  I am in full agreement that you or anyone should at this time not
>conduct
>a poll or election,  Joop's initiative not withstanding.

If you mean that Joop, though with the best intentions, is once again
acting unilaterally under the presumption that he speaks for all of
ICANNATLARGE.ORG, I'm with you.

As far as I am concerned, the poll is just a poll *unless* this
group decides the results will be binding on us despite unresolved
problems over who was and was not invited to vote and who did and
did not have any input into the questions asked there.


>I do not understand why you cannot keep up with your E-Mail.
>You must find a way in which to do that IMHO.

I agree in principle ... but some of us have demanding jobs,
family responsibilities, other volunteer efforts, illnesses,
computer problems, etc. to deal with, and we're not all 21 anymore
or able to function entirely without sleep.

Speaking for myself, I believe (still!) that this group has the
potential to do something important for Internet users but I've
got a project running late, a family-member in hospital, a case
of bronchitis I can't shake which is slowing me down a lot,
and 250+ messages a day to deal with. And today I had to spend
an unforeseen three hours sorting out a technical problem
which had kept me offline for 24 hours, which really didn't help.

Other adults carry similar loads, probably more efficiently than
I can at this point, but that doesn't make it any less arrogant
or inappropriate to assume that this particular group must be
everyone's top priority.

>  Yet we still must have an election to elect a new Panel or BOD.

I am in complete agreement with that. But it *must* be an
election held at the behest of this group, under conditions
on which there is agreement. We do have a set of (minimal)
rules for our elections, which was used last time around, and
could simply do the same again ... or we could choose to
revise those rules now so as to avoid further arguments about
the validity of those elections during and after they have
been run.

The Polling Booth question substantially asks one to choose
who gets to run the elections, not what the rules should be.

>  Until or unless we have the membership list in a neutral parties
>hands or care, I don't see how any election can be considered
>legitimate at this juncture, despite Jefsey's earlier suggestions.

A small update is in order. Today's e-mail contains a further
surprise, in the form of a new Excel file from Vittorio
apparently containing the membership list in alphabetical order.
Like the previous file, I will keep it unopened until there is
some agreement on what should be done with it by whom.

>  Joops initiative of a poll at this time is untimely as many are
>heading to Rio.  Hence skewing any results.

I strongly suspect most of us are not part of the globetrotting
IT elite headed for Rio but the poll can't be taken as a formal
vote of the membership, in my opinion, given various flaws in
the process. What it can do, perhaps, is indicate whether Joop
or Jefsey or Vittorio would be trusted to run the election, or
whether it mightn't be preferable to speak to Elizabeth
Porteneuve and find out if she would be willing to help us out.

Anyway, I await further news with great interest.

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