RE: [atlarge-discuss] what most members want

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 17:05 +1300 2003/04/03, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>At 02:17 a.m. 3/04/2003, J-F C. (Jefsey)  Morfin wrote:
>>On 19:05 01/04/03, espresso@e-scape.net said:
>>>This is why I've been such a pain about setting realistic periods
>>>for nominations, asking questions of candidates, and trying to
>>>define some kind of mandate before proceeding to a vote.
>>
>>Dear Judyth,
>>Thank you to eventually say it!  You are actually trying to
>>unilaterally organize elections by yourself. I understand why
>>you stubbornly accuse others of unilateralism and refuse to
>>acknowledge - at least - they deny such an accusation.

I wrote part of a response to Jefsey's latest batch of
accusations but have held it back in the hope that it would
be unnecessary. You'll probably get it later on since I'm
still pretty steamed about it.

In the meantime...

>Unilateralists of the world Unite. :-)
>
>We all want elections. The members have just told us what they want to
>elect fellow members for. Now it must be organized.
>
>Can we (unilateralists) perhaps agree on how to organize these
>elections?

Whether you and Jefsey could agree between yourselves I will leave
up to you. I am not a unilateralist and want no part of such a
process.

Given that Jefsey has predicated his right to make
unilateral decisions on his status as a member of the Panel,
even he should recognize now that there are *three* people
on the Panel who have been charged collectively with the
duty to conduct proper elections. If he is not prepared
to work with his fellow-Panelists to do this, he should
resign forthwith; otherwise, I would expect him to fulfil
his duties by working within the Panel to make sure that
the elections are conducted fairly, efficiently, and
soon.

Given that Joop is not a member of the Panel or holder of
any other elective position within the organization, I
find his ultimatum doubly unacceptable. He is a valued
member of this group and has worked hard on its behalf
but I believe the notion that any member, however valuable,
can usurp the power to make decisions for the group must
be discarded *immediately* if this group is to have any
meaning at all. Joop, you cannot make a case to the
world that ICANN must be a democracy if you yourself
believe in not letting democratic processes take the
time they take.

It is *always* faster for one dictator or a few oligarchs
to make a decision than it is to let democracy work. Faster
is not necessarily better, and it is precisely this kind
of unauthorized action and equally unauthorized refusal to
fulfil specific mandates which wasted most of our time and
energy these past months.

>Can I (fed up with further obstacles and delay) perhaps be persuaded
>to
>wait for another 30 days to see if such amicable and practical
>agreement
>between adults can be reached , before I organize the elections
>"unilaterally"?
>
>Can you, Judyth? (you hold the "official" list)

The official list and addendum, along with the FTP access
information, were sent to our three Panel-members. As
requested, I am retaining the list files (unopened) against
any future need for them. My e-mail client did not allow me
to forward the FTP information without opening the message
but I assure you I did not memorize its contents and would
not misuse that information in any case.

>Can you, Jefsey? (I know you have a list not very different from mine.
>I
>gave it to all Panel members, remember)

No comment.

>It should be the outcome of elections that counts, not who organizes
>them.
>
>But *if* who organizes them is likely to make a difference in the
>outcomes,
>then I accept that that battle must be fought first.
>Vittorio's election has proven how vulnerable we are.

I believe that who organizes the elections is crucial, though
only insofar as the organizing itself is open, transparent
and democratic ... as is the case here now that the three
Panel-members have agreed to work together as a Panel.
Beyond that, what is important is that the people involved
can be trusted to run a fair election and to work together
efficiently.

>30 days.
>For the sake of not acting unilaterally.

Think about this, Joop! You issue a unilateral ultimatum to
everyone "for the sake of not acting unilaterally"??? and
if others don't hop to it and meet your personal deadline,
you'll hold the elections all by yourself and demand that
the group treat the results as binding? Give us a break!

Regards,

Judyth
(who is out of here the next time *anybody*
gets away with this kind of nonsense)

##########################################################
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