[atlarge-discuss] JEFSEY HAS SABOTAGED THE ELECTIONS

[Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

This is complete and utter nonsense!  It makes no sense, not in English, 
not even in Martian I bet!  It's obvious that Jefsey was the wrong 
person to run this election as he is largely incapable expressing 
himself and his intentions to the membership as a whole.

The only thing left is to have the legitimately and publicly nominated 
and seconded individuals who have so far accepted their nominations to 
automatically form the bootstrap panel.

--Sotiris

J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> 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


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