[atlarge-discuss] response to the question of a nominee

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Folks,
a nominee from icannatlarge.com questioned the seriousness of his 
nomination when seeing the name of the other nominees of the Forum. Another 
one wants to know why he was nominated (all the Members of the Polling 
Committee are in copy, if some had accepted to be a Watchdog they would 
also be).

It happens that the questions are from icannatlarge.com's nominees, but it 
could be from others. Many  errors have been said on nominations by 
critics: it is refreshing to get serious questions. Because questions can 
be responded.

The voted rule by the Polling Committee is that a Members must be nominated 
and seconded, and that two nominations are the same as being nominated and 
seconded. As a French this is totally opaque to me. I only understand that 
one has to have two persons thinking and saying you could be a good 
Panelist to have the right to be a candidate (hence my confusing(?) 
response about seconding).

---

As soon as we voted the rule, Joop made a case about the Forum being 
acknowledged. Our interest is not in ruling but in serving this community. 
A Polling Committee Member then accepted (and we tacitly agreed) that 
nominations could reach the Polling Committee any way. This is realistic 
since may be 10 to 30 people are active on the Forum and 20 on the mailing 
list for a quickly reactive Membership of probably 300.

This rule implied:
- there is no limitation on the number of Members one can nominate
- there is no obligation to disclose who one endorses, no who is nominating.

This lead to two interesting cases:
- nominations of people by opponents. Because no one would know it and 
because we need new blood. I did not established the rule but I saw it was 
a good rule and I wish we keep it. Like Primaries.

- one "disrupter" nominated all the Members. His idea was to break the 
system which blocks this community. He had no problem in having a friend 
joining and nominating publicly 1080 Members. This was a kill. He wanted 
self nominations. I shown him rules had been voted and no one would move by 
his own. He wanted icannatlarge.org to collapse in a dispute, killing 
icannatlarge.com this way and making a large number of motivated members to 
join and take control of the ALAC.

I made a "deal" so he would not kill us and this election. He would second 
everyone I would say and I would second everyone anyone would nominate. I 
expected some nomination to occur so I would have mostly seconded some on 
behalf of the non disclosed opponents. But two days before the limit date 
no nomination was coming. I then nominated 68 Members to block my 
"disrupter" and asked who I missed. My "disrupter", and I agree with him, 
thinks the Members are grown enough to decide and do not need someone to 
tell them who they can vote for. We need life. My list included also the 
people nominated by their opponents (making them the most nominated and the 
most ... questioned :-)

Then Joop came with a list of people after delay. We had no way to know if 
they had been seconded, every rason to refuse him and no reason to refuse 
them. So we agreed to accept them and I nominated them (no reason not to 
treat them equal). We delayed a few days more to permit other Members (if 
any) to do the same (not to favor one Member). I convinced Claude Thielet 
who had nominated people before and had an idea (he explained) to come with 
a list. He seconded all my nominations and I seconded his. Some of my names 
having been seconded by Joop, every nominee has been publicly nominated at 
least twice, often three times and sometimes four times. Actually, some of 
my names have been nominated by 5 persons. On Joop's side it seems some 
were by more - also a larger number of nominators?


So we fully respected the rules we had set. But the target is not to 
respect an arbitrary rule. It is to set a good rule. From the reaction of 
the nominees, from the private mails of the nominators, from the experience 
of the Forum, I think nominations should be secret. Primaries.

Also, the nominations should be motivated. So the Nominees would know why 
they are nominated.

This way the nominees could freely decide of their candidacy in knowing the 
true support they have. Joop's system does that in part from what I gather. 
So does the direct non disclosed mail to Panelists, but it is not 
transparent. Hence complains (but once started one has to respect it).


I will therefore propose a question on this to the Membership on the ballot.

------

Now, the question of the Joop's nominee asking why he was nominated. I 
cannot say and since he does not want to be publish I will not betray him. 
But, if Joop accepts, I can respond him to contact Joop?


Anyway, all this shows why we need him. He rose a question that our Charter 
should respond. This experience is important to us. We obviously block 
because the system we use is not OUR system, but the system of SOME. I do 
not see a difference between two nominations and a seconded nomination. 
This nominee is not at ease with the nomination process. Some nominees 
respond with unexpected enthusiasm or talents we never heard from. Our 
system is to be reviewed before being built. All the delays of this year 
may have served to that. We are not to copythe US, the French, the NZ, etc 
system.. we are to build our own. And for that we need candidates from 
eerywhere.


I had to go out. I had to work on a business project. I had to finish 
http://jefsey.com/ocp.htm for the IETF, I had a mail on an ITU matter to 
work on. But I thing we all need to work together to get a community based 
on our own Democratic multilateralism. I am proud that we have nominees 
from more than 50 countries and cultures. This is a chance for us to build 
something real, and lasting more than the ICANN' dominated ALAC. With a 
broader scope. After a near collapse.


Let discuss it now through the preparation of the questions. I suggest that 
one looks at what Michael Geist made for the ccTLDs. And please, please let 
stop all this incredibly nasty childish vocabulary, this bickering and this 
petty administrative concerns. Please look at the responses of the 
nominees. Far more interesting than some postings today on the list. IMHO 
at least.

jfc























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