[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want



At 06:05 a.m. 2/04/2003, espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

It's also one of the reasons I believe an e-mail ballot is
preferable - one reaches more people fairly quickly and people
can respond more easily than by spending time looking at one
Web page after another. Some would disagree with me on that
but I think it is worth a try and could hardly get a lower
response rate than the recent poll.
I hope you are aware of the fact that the voting members in majority think differently.
Email ballot is not preferred.
It is too easy to fake responses.


>>Polls are educational, but cannot take the place of an actual
>>election when
>>setting policy for this group, unless a clear majority of our members
>>participate.
>
>*Participation* by 500 members is an unrealistic  expectation to put
>it
>mildly.
>Laying out structure is an attempt to bring order into chaos, now made
>by
>the 99 or so most interested members.

In my opinion, if we don't expect to get 500 active members,
we have no business trying to represent "Internet users" on
anything.
It is our business to provide *the means* to hundreds (or thousands) of active members to become a representative cross-section of the internet users, interested in global internet "governance" issues.

If we don't do it, the ALAC will "represent" the millions. Is that what you want?

Obviously, not everyone is prepared to be equally
active as the "core group" but if we purport to speak for
over 500 million and aim (as we did) at 100,000 members
shortly after incorporating, an organization where fewer than
500 bother to cast votes would deserve to be dismissed as
irrelevant to Internet governance.
No organization (except the INEGroup :))  is *born* with 100.000 members.
Go ahead, dismiss the founding members as irrelevant.


>What the structure ends up to be is less important than *having* an
>undisputed structure (after 13 months of achieving nothing).
>Such structure could also have been proposed by 5 good willing
>bottom-up
>members, but 99 is a lot better.

More than 5 people here have proposed various structures,
some of them bottom-up and some not. The problem is that
we weren't encouraged to discuss those issues in an
organized way and then vote on whatever seemed best after
discussion. It is the Chair (of a Panel, working group or
even an open discussion with lots of participants) who
normally states the agenda and ensures that orderly
discussion leads to decision leads to action.
Correct. Having Panel and committee Chairs (and no fights about it) is part of the needed structure.

>*Policy setting* is done by the elected members who will be elected
>into
>that structure, each with specific mandate.

You're taking quite a bit for granted there. Policy-setting
is *not* necessarily something one hands over with a "you decide
for us" to those elected to sit on a body within the organization.
Bottom-up organizations do indeed have committees which do the
research and drafting but policy is actually set only when
the members have ratified a resolution to that effect.

I agree. My point was to speak to Bruce implying that policy -setting was somehow done by the latest membership polls.

Given that we've spent a year or so on "you decide for us" and
seen only that those elected were unable to work together in
any systematic way, I am sure in my own mind that we should
try a little "grassroots" democracy for a change.
Do you not agree with what I have done in that direction? Or do you feel that it should be your turn now to use the members address list?

>-Those who profess to believe in direct democracy pass the real test
>when
>they disagree with a result, but still respect it.-

As I said in my comments at the Polling Booth, some of the
questions took a good deal for granted about the kinds of
options this group should be choosing.

Judyth, you are politicking here. You yourself were specifically invited , along with the watchers, to help phrasing questions and critique the proposed ones.
You promised twice to come back with a text contribution.
Am I free to disclose the mails in which you did that?

You did critique Walter's questions and they were amended accordingly in the Booth.
Now you are pretending that you were not consulted?

This whole list was made aware of the coming poll on structure and contributions were invited, a month before it was finally launched.


As others have said
more than once, the poll was just a poll, not a referendum
binding on this group - after all, this group neither set
the questions nor informed all its members on the issues.
O.K. Let "this group" set the questions and inform all its members on the issues. HOW?

But I think we can use the results for the benefit of the
group by recognizing that we need to elect not only a
Panel but a Panel with a clear mandate to organize the work
and individual officers and directors with specific individual
responsibilities, who can keep the work progressing and
organize the rest of us into volunteer committees that
actually function.
"We"  should feel  obliged to work within the results.

A larger number of members expressed their preferences at
the Polling Booth than have done so on this list. Maybe this
group should consider conducting an official follow-up poll
where more members can cast votes on specific proposals
rather than general questions?
There were a few questions that were rather specific, such as webmaster/panel rules.
It would be wise to consider these now ratified by the members, if only to prevent another website impasse.

On the other hand, a YES or NO on specific proposals increases the danger of "leading" with questions and this should not be done by any single unelected individual, myself included, but only by an elected Polling Commission.


In any case, there seems to be a majority agreement here
that we want an election soon, and elections are meaningless
unless members are encouraged to nominate others or volunteer
for to fulfil particular mandates.
Correct.

I'm perfectly willing
to let Bruce, Jefsey and Eric propose the necessary mechanisms
and timetable but hope that if the election is to be soon,
the mandates will be discussed and the call for nominations
drafted even sooner.
Of course they may propose.
As individual and respected members.

As for discussing mandates, voting is supposed to end discussions, not start them.
Discussion is needed where the vote outcome is marginal or unclear.

Exhortations are all fine, but someone has to do the work of translating the members' wishes into a workable Constitution.

In my opinion every member is free to start nominations for Web Panel, Polling Commission, membership committee, Executive or Walter's proposed interim Charter Bootstrap Board.

Now.

If I can find the time, I fully intend to help fellow members with the nomination process by supplying lists of participating members eligible for nomination. Here, in the Forum and in the Booth.
Those who have actively participated in the last two Polls would be my first choice, but any other volunteers should also be accepted.


Let's get on with this election or the icannatlarge will remain headless and paralyzed.




-joop-



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