Re: [atlarge-discuss] For the sake of transparency: Nominators

["Micheal Sherrill" <micheal@beethoven.com>]

Hello ICANNatLarge:

It has become increasingly obvious that an 11 member Panel is not viable.  We need to think smaller and faster.  Let us set a goal of a 5 person Panel and hope that there are enough backup members to fill the vacant positions as the incumbent Panel members drop out.

Regards,


Micheal Sherrill


---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Date:  Tue, 06 May 2003 12:03:57 +1200

At 10:22 p.m. 5/05/2003, Richard Henderson wrote:
>The people below "ticked" the names of certain other (undisclosed) people
>who they were happy to see nominated.

Not quite undisclosed. The list can be viewed by all 881 members with a 
current password to the Polling Booth.
It consists of all members active enough to vote, plus a few that are 
active on this list, but for some reason did not vote.

>The list below is not a list of
>nominations. The list below is not a list of people accepting nominations.
>The list below is simply people who went to the Polling Booth and expressed
>an opinion.
>
>For example, I did, and I'm listed below, but I have no desire to be
>nominated or to stand for election.

I hope that you will change your mind in order to give this election a chance.
Would you perhaps be willing to stand for a 5 person Panel, with a mandate 
to bring structure to icannatlarge and organize proper elections for the 
Officers that the members want?
Plus a secondary mandate to facilitate the writing of a Charter and submit 
the most urgent parts (such as Mission Statement) to the members for early 
ratification?


>The real question is: if only 4 or 5 people accept nominations to an
>11-person panel, should the elction carry on? What do you do?

Get enough acceptances to fill a smaller Panel and avoid default candidates.

>Thinking laterally, an alternative would be to hand over the running of the
>organisation to the Polling Booth, and simply let the membership define the
>direction and policies and actions, step by step, through regular polls.

For that alternative to work, we would still need elections for a 3 person 
Polling Commission.
Personally, I think this election is the most urgent of all.

>More people seem willing to participate through the Polling Booth than
>actually stand for election. So why not just run the organisation "bottom
>up" and democratically until such time as we are strong enough to develop
>panels to carry out actual tasks?
>
>Just a thought.


-joop-



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



*************************************************
 Listen to the "World's Classical Radio Station"
            http://www.beethoven.com
Great Music, Free Email, Exciting Bulletin Board!

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