Re: [atlarge-discuss] Poll watcher rights and duties

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

Judyth and all fellow members,

  Your comments and opinions are now very circumspect Judyth sense
you broke your oath.  However as a matter of accuracy and common
sense I will try to address your missive remarks below in response to
Joop.

  It is true that WebMail is a poor substitute for a forum such as this
one or other Standard e-mail based forums.  It is also common sense
that those stakeholders/users that ONLY have E-Mail access cannot
use WebMail, yet are VERY limited Stakeholders/users.  Not having
access to the WWW does not preclude access to a website if the
DNS is set up properly.  ICANNATLARGE.ORG can be accessed
without the Web for instance.  It is also a point of clarity that we
cannot now be able to provide much of anything for stakeholders/users
and especially those that cannot at least have access to DNS, as they
cannot  use standard E-Mail either in most instances.  Ergo web based
apps that are not WWW apps are accessible to the vast majority
of those whom have access to E-Mail.  Hence web based voting is
possible for them to utilize, and is much safer by far than E-Mail
voting.

espresso@e-scape.net wrote:

> At 11:40 +1200 2003/04/10, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >We have tried both methods, and the assumptions are based on the
> >outcome.
> >All members (except Vittorio's 17) received an email and if web-voting
> >would have been a huge burden for many who *wanted* to vote, they
> >could
> >have used the email options (reply to the sender or subscribe to the
> >ML) to
> >express their frustration.
>
> Joop, I think you've missed the point here. To the best of my
> recollection, your invitation message didn't say "here are the
> questions, and you can vote by replying if you can't use the
> Web-based Polling Booth".
>
> People with limited or intermittent Internet access would not
> necessarily have responded by signing up for a heavy-volume
> mailing list just to complain, or even necessarily have
> complained directly to you. They'd be more likely to assume
> that this group isn't actually much concerned about their
> problems.
>
> >>As I've said, answering all the
> >>questions in the recent poll and writing a few short comments
> >>took me nearly 2 hours using dialup.
> >
> >If many others had the same complaint, it would have shown up in the
> >comment lines.
>
> Joop, most people wouldn't have stayed the course. As I'm
> sure you must know, most people will leave a Web site if
> they don't find what they're looking for in 30 seconds or
> so. And people who have problems with Web access to begin
> with wouldn't be in a position to post comments on your
> site.
>
> >Your concern for the poor is laudable. But how long do you want your
> >argument to hold up the elections for this basically self-selected
> >group of
> >people who are interested in ICANN governance issues?
> >These people have said they want structure and elections.
>
> That's unfair, I think. I'm not holding anything up nor do I
> want to. Bruce, Jefsey and Eric are working on the necessary
> preparations; Abel, Jefsey, Stephen, etc. have been discussing
> the software issues with you. I am not directly involved in
> either aspect so I'm talking about another issue I believe
> is relevant. Why shouldn't I, and why should it be seen as
> somehow preventing the elections from happening ... unless
> you mean that you had hoped the group would just use the
> Polling Booth as it was used for the polls.
>
> >Neither of us *know*.  Such issue can be debated forever, but respect
> >for a
> >majority vote allows us to move ahead.
> >Inclusion (of everyone)  should follow, not lead.
>
> This is where we disagree. I believe that accessibility is
> a high priority if we're serious about representing all
> Internet users. Treating it as something to be considered
> at some unspecified future date sends the wrong kind of
> message about what this group cares about.
>
> >The fundamental issue is: What is "democracy" if it does not involve a
> >majority deciding?
> >
> >Democratic governance is promoted by the fact that we are open and
> >that our
> >leaders are not appointed but elected.
> >But our membership is self-appointed and that is something we cannot
> >change.
>
> Members in any non-compulsory organization are self-selected.
> My question is "what kind of democracy do you have if only
> some, rather than all, of the members can participate in the
> voting?" Now, I'm not saying you're the only proponent of the
> "well, if the majority of the members we did accommodate
> vote for X, the rest will just have to lump it" school of
> democracy - just that I don't agree with that approach.
>
> In real-life elections in my part of the world, we try not
> to disenfranchise the disabled and elderly so we put our
> polling stations in accessible rooms rather than up three
> flights of stairs. The disabled and elderly are admittedly
> a minority of the population but we don't think they should
> be prevented from casting their ballots by a technical
> barrier. Nobody can say exactly how much this affects the
> outcome of any given election ... but they're citizens so
> we feel they should have the same rights as other citizens.
>
> On the other hand, I know an organization which
> has "elected" its current executive by placing a number
> of barriers in the way of anyone who might have run against
> the "slate" consisting of some of last year's executive
> and some of their hand-picked candidates. Using a very
> short nomination period and making sure that the announcement
> of its start did not reach the membership until it was over
> kept anyone else from running. The balloting itself was
> conducted properly and the people now in power were
> indeed elected by a majority of ballots cast but with no
> other candidates on the ballot, how valid is the election
> and how democratic is its result?
>
> >The best we can do is to abide by the majority wish of the
> >self-selected
> >voters among our self-selected members and create a meaningful
> >umbrella
> >organization that can speak to ICANN with the force of numbers behind
> >it.
>
> I have no problem with voters being self-selected from within
> our membership - just with the potential for somebody else
> selecting means which prevent them from voting.
>
> As for the umbrella-organization model, to the best of my
> knowledge that is not something already-decided but one
> of a number of possible approaches.
>
> >Nowhere near "at least triple".
> >The last email vote (on the domain name), returned 159 valid votes.
> >The most-answered  question (with the longest exposure and no
> >password) in
> >the Polling Booth returned 148 votes.
> >The key question about "division of power" returned 98 secure votes.
> >(64% >FOR)
>
> Actually, I wasn't thinking about the domain name vote but
> about the previous elections, which I believe got a lot more
> participation, perhaps because leadership is more important
> than a domain name.
>
> As for the "division of power" issue, there is no question
> about the need for division of labour or about the need
> for responsible performance of the duties for which one is
> elected. I did make some comments about the structure
> which your questions presupposed; I'll just say now that
> it will be up to the new Panel to lead this group through
> the process that will make it a real organization with
> a mission and structure its members will ratify and be willing
> to work within.
>
> >>Meanwhile, though, I'd like to suggest that, whatever method
> >>is chosen for the election, we could perhaps include a short
> >>questionnaire with the Call for Nominations message. It
> >>would be useful, I think, to know more about who our members are
> >>and what kinds of access conditions they actually face. I'm
> >>pressed for time now but will try to draft something for
> >>discussion if nobody else has a better idea.
> >
> >Yes please draft some basic questions about access. It might  be a
> >good
> >thing to incorporate such questions in our sign -up form and enter
> >them in
> >the database..
>
> I'll try to get to it on the weekend. Meanwhile, could you
> guys not do something to make it possible for members to
> update their contact information via the Web site? Stephen
> Waters sent his change of e-mail address to the list because
> he couldn't do it online ... but what comes to the list is
> obviously not picked up by the membership database software.
> This alone might explain why we can no longer contact some
> of our registered members.
>
> 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