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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Judyth and all fellow members,

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> 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.

  Good.  That is exactly what I mean.  I also understand in part
Joops motivation.  That being trying to get things off dead center
and moving in a direction.  However such polls are helpful
only if conducted as part ot this organizations behest.

>
>
> 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.

  Very good and valid point.

>
>
> >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.

  I am not any where close to 21, I have huge and growing demands
upon me and especially my time, not excluding being a single father
to boot.  If I can manage my time well enough, that I am VERY sure
anyone else can as well if not better than I!

>
>
> 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.

  Very much agreed.  This is why and where the previous and now
defunct panel let the membership down to a great degree.

> 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.

  I have suggested several other ideas as well.  I still suggest
that the same rules apply but a more secure method of casting
a vote be used.

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

  Yes.  This is a poor and very leading question...

>
>
> >  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.

  Good idea here!

>
>
> >  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.

  You may be right here.  However I know that several of
our [INEGroup] members will be attending in Rio.

> 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.

  Elizabeth is no longer the GNSO/DNSO secretariat.

>
>
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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