RE: [atlarge-discuss] Election Preparation

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 19:40 +1200 2003/04/16, Joop Teernstra wrote:
>>------------  Message begins -------------
>>
>>Based on a motion of the acting Panel, ICANNATLARGE.ORG is conducting
>>an
>>election for eleven persons from within the membership to serve on our
>>executive panel for a term of one year, or a reduced period if the
>>newly-elected Panel so decides.
>
>Executive Panel? Election of  11 people? You are setting this up for
>failure, IMHO.
>
>The members have already indicated that they want a division of power
>and
>not an 11 member Panel.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, Joop, but your
Polling Booth poll was just that, not an official referendum
of ICANNATLARGE.ORG, and we have few enough rules in place
that it might be nice to follow them as far as they go.
Your proposed model of a Panel which only runs the Web site
while a smaller Executive Committee has all the decision-
making power would probably come to 11 bodies anyway and,
after all, last year's plan was to have separate working groups
handling the Web site, bylaws, etc. which nobody disputed.

Meanwhile, the new Interim Panel members will obviously have
the opportunity to propose a reduction in their numbers or
term of office and will not necessarily want to prevent a
division of labour and powers. Personally, given the tendency
of last year's panelists to drop away, I suspect electing 11
means a reasonable chance of having 7 in six months instead of
another crisis...

>Motion of the "Acting Panel"?   Highly controversial idea.
>Jefsey and Bruce, you are overstepping your authority as ex-Panel
>members
>facilitating  an election as a private bottom-up initiative.

We can argue this until the cows come home but the fact
remains that Bruce, Jefsey and Eric agreed not to resign
and to make sure the election happens. They are not a
full Panel, of course, but that's why we're holding the
election! I agree the wording isn't ideal -- after all,
it was the membership which demanded a new election --
but I can live with it given that the "Acting Panel"
will cease to exist in few weeks when the new Interim
Panel will come into being.

>Also, I strongly recommend that you make it part of the message that
>nominations can also be made in the Forum, like previous times.
>http://www.icannatlarge.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22
>Not everyone who may want to make a nomination will want to subscribe
>to
>this mailing list.

But there is nothing in the text of Bruce's message
to suggest that nominations are to be made on this mailing
list! On the contrary, the request for nominations and
questions for the ballot will be going to *all* members
(including those who register by the May 2 deadline) by
e-mail and - though perhaps this needs to be stated more
explicitly? - the said nominations and questions would
presumably be sent by replying to the message.

I've got nothing against forums per se but isn't it time
we started recognizing that our proto-organization is
*one* entity whose name, for better or worse, is
ICANNATLARGE.ORG and which needs to pull together and
run one election process rather than have one set of
people on the mailing list and another set on the forum
while the people who don't hang out in either get left
out?

It might help, I think, if the message spelled out what,
if any, seconding process is envisaged for nominations.
Last time around, I think we did that on the list but
it might be sufficient to see who gets more than one
nomination. One question I do have is about

>Mon May 5 		Deadline for nominees to accept
>0:00 GMT		Candidates will post their statement online, and provide
>			a link to Bruce Young (bruce@barelyadequate.info), who
>			will post the links on the Web site.

which reads as if anyone who is a candidate must have his
or her own Web site and only the links will be on the
ICANNATLARGE.ORG site. I would much prefer it if all of
the candidate statements were posted on the site itself
-- it makes things a little easier for those with less powerful
equipment or slower connections if they don't have to
keep going to external sites, and it means people who do
not have Web sites of their own can still be candidates.

I'd *really* like it if a second message went out on
May 5 or 6 which listed the candidates and provided a brief
statement and contact information for each of them, especially
if there is no forum provided for asking questions of the
candidates publicly. (Now, that's where the group might
choose to avail itself of Joop's facilities and talents
and make the forum the official place for those questions
and answers!)

If we're to avoid some of the problems we've had in the past,
it would help more to know about what people stand for than what
they do in their day jobs. If a forum isn't feasible and we
can't assemble private questions into a "Q&A", would it perhaps
be possible to ask candidates to fill out a questionnaire that
would indicate what they want this group to do and would promote
as Panelists? It would facilitate comparisons if all candidates
answered questions like

"How do you see ICANNATLARGE.ORG interacting with
a) its members;
b) other constituencies of Internet users (e.g., regional,
local or interest-based groups);
c) ICANN (including ALAC, RALO);
d) other bodies concerned with Internet use (e.g., WSIS)"

"What type of structure do you see as best suiting that role?"

"How should ICANNATLARGE.ORG
a) develop its positions on various issues affecting Internet
   users;
b) choose the representatives it sends to meetings with
   other organizations;
c) generate revenues to support its activities;
d) overcome the problems of distance and language in its
   internal governance (annual meetings, communication with
   members, etc.) and outreach activities;
e) gain credibility with ICANN and other bodies as true
   representative of Internet users (e.g., not just its members)"

That's very rough and no doubt others could suggest other
and better questions but that's the minimum of what I'd
like to know as a voter, and the answers would count more
to me than whether the candidate was a systems administrator
or owned a dotcom or could afford to fly to ICANN Board meetings.

Just some thoughts ...

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