[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [atlarge-discuss] "Common Sense" Re: MOTION! Panel Members! Speak Out NOW!
At 07:18 05/04/03, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
Joop Teernstra wrote:
| Bruce, if you can do it, go for it. I'll gladly step back. You,
| Jefsey and | Eric have just as much right to organize an election as I,
| Judyth and Richard. (for example)
Thanks for the endorsement. But there will be enough work for everyone, I
suspect. And I'm hoping that the new Panel will give your polling booth a
regular workout. I'm thinking monthly polls on the issues of the moment.
I suppose that we will resolve all the details in a final motion of the
Panelists. But IMHO our only service to this community is to serve
its legitimacy for its future stability. This should comme in gathering
with us all who are dedicatedlyb involved and to build for the future.
Judyth, Jan, Joop, Abel IMHO are the first one.
| I consider myself as one trying to further the cause of
| holding meaningful elections and I see vociferous and sometimes
| petty and far-fetched objections to my actions.
I know. And you've kept the momentum going. Thank you for that.
idem.
| Ignore that "indicator" at your (and our) peril. As far as new
| elections is concerned, it is a demand.
I know. That is why Jefsey and I have been pressing forward ever since that
initial poll, to get elections going. Vittorio's exit, and his machinations
with the membership list and Web admin keys, delayed everything and threw an
air of suspicion over the whole process that we're still not out from under!
I'm hoping that our doing exactly what we say we intend to do will help
restore some level of confidence.
Fully concur. Today my only target is to help and retire when things
have been democratically and openly stabilized.
| But by all means, try to get a higher participation rate.
total agreement. And this is where we have to join all forces.
As Panelist we bring a part of the possiblity to do something.
You and others bring other part. I call on Jeff and Hugh to bring
their own part.
That is my intent: to include your poll questions in the ballot. More to
come on that in a separate message.
| Good. Are you going to repeat the key question then, if the
| members want a single Do-all Panel of if they want a division of Power?
Yes. Actually, I expect that, once all the inputs are in from the members
(right now our intent is to solict questions along with nominations in a
single letter.
My advise is to strictly follow the last vote rules so no one
objects on changes. And to add your and everyone question
so this Panel knows what you did not know: what the Members
want. I suspect that will make it impossible for them to move
without the full agreement of the community.
As you know I share many of your positions regarding parties
and functional structures. I add my own positions about local
structures and community outreach and flexible relations
between structures. But this is not a point for today, except
that we are to permit it to happen in not pushing for it now.
| Are you going to get a VOTE on what size of web Panel the members want?
| I hope you will get more than 100 votes.
Yes. Again, my intent is to push to have the questions as part of the same
ballot we use to elect new Panel members, so we will have some specific
guidance with which to build our bylaws.
Joop, we need the Members to VOTE on several other issues as well.
The three members Panel left cannot decide such a vote. Se we are
to elect a full 11 persons Panel (so there is no dispute) and make sure
they are bound to organize such VOTES professionnally and quick.
My main fear is that we have a new Panel and start again the inept
Chair rulling we known with our three Chair. We need a moderator,
a stewart, a servant. Not an unilateral king. As we have no way to
know who will be elected, we need to force him/her to be professionnal
in forcing the Panel to move the way we want.
We have no way to change the duration of the mandate without
creating more problems. But it should be made clear through the
questions and responses that this is something which is going
to be decided by voters.
| Please quote from any of my postings how I am "dead-set against
| the idea of elections".
Perhaps that was poorly worded. The point I was trying to make was that
everyone wants new elections, but seemed to object to anyone who was
standing up to make them happen!
I read Joop as saying he wants changes. We all want them.
But only the Panel elected to that end can propose them and
make them voted. As soon as Vittorio refused to refill it, we
needed a new election to refill it. With a new Panel we can
proceed with what you/we wich/want to happen.
| Having a MOTION turn into a resolution when you have no quorum is one of
| those actions that can bring an ICANNite to a position of officiality.
I have no intention of doing anything further other than conducting a
successful elections. Period.
That motion was only requested by Judyth who had entraepped
herself into not accepting the last motion of Vittorio we had voted.
Today the Panelists are just "the last one elected to get the
Panel refilled through an election". Full agreement with Bruce.
| -Those who profess to believe in direct democracy pass the real
| test when they disagree with a result, but still respect it.-
Agreed. In this case I feel our current actions -- to hold an election --
are in agreement with the wishes of the membership.
Full agreement.
I'm hoping everyone can
please stop complaining about *how* the elections came to pass and provide
positive inputs to help us make them successful!
Full agreement.
jfc
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de