Re: [atlarge-discuss] Tainted election?

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

Richard and all fellow members,

  Richard, the illegitimate supposed election process that is being
unfortunately spammed upon the members is ill conceived. As
such, any elections outcome would be tainted in it's outcome.
It is simple cause and effect...

Richard Henderson wrote:

> Bruce
>
> I trust your goodwill and honesty.
>
> I would not say this election was tainted in its intent.
>
> However, I would say this election is tainted in its outcome.
>
> Reluctantly I agree with Joop that we need an Electoral Commission with a
> very limited timeframe to set up more clearly defined election rules and
> processes; a clearcut web-based process for publishing (a) nominations (b)
> seconds (c) clear candidate statements (d) specific questions for candidates
> to answer; and protection against mass nominations like the ones we have
> seen this month.
>
> I would suggest that any member may only nominate as many people as the
> number of places up for election, and may only second as many people as the
> number of places up for election. That would concentrate the mind. There
> would also be a case for requiring more than simply a second. If a person
> cannot hope to find four or five supporters to vote for him in the actual
> election, then perhaps they should not be involved in the election. In the
> UK the "deposit fee" serves as a filter of flippant candidates, as they
> would lose their deposit. If a candidate cannot muster five people to
> nominate and back their nomination, then is it necessary for them to stand?
>
> This may be seen as too draconian but I raise it for simple consideration!
>
> The Electoral Commission should also clearly define in advance which
> websites will participate in which capacities, and how/where nominations can
> be made. There is a sense this month of "making it up as we go along".
>
> One candidate accepted their nomination tonight. What is the specific
> deadline for accepting nominations? She has been accepted as a candidate,
> but I thought the deadline had passed.
>
> The Election Process needs to be re-written much more rigorously, and if the
> outcome is fewer candidates, then so be it - but I am wholeheartedly opposed
> to an "evolving election scenario" where many of the people who end up on
> the voting sheet are people who have remained silent in all the
> deliberations and debates of our org, and who may gain a panel place simply
> on the basis of a whimsical mass-registration.
>
> Sorry Bruce, but whatever the good intentions behind this election, I have
> very grave doubts about the outcome of this election.
>
> My concerns are sufficient to question the future of this specific version
> of the At Large if it goes ahead.
>
> Obviously I'd keep open-minded to watch the outcome play out, but as things
> stand, I feel the process has unravelled.
>
> I'm sure you'll get an 11-member panel. I'm not sure you'll get a panel the
> membership actually wants, because of the choice of candidates. Of course,
> you could say: well why don't more popular members stand for election. But
> perhaps the organisation itself has a credibility problem, which puts off
> active members from committing.
>
> In which case, we're gambling the future of this group on people who have
> been more or less arbitrarily nominated, and who then having been nominated
> out of the blue were willing/mad/committed/whimsical/who knows what enough
> to say "Sure, I'll take over the running of your Panel for you."
>
> It's a gamble.
>
> You can see if it pays off. Or you can set up a process that actually
> safeguards the interests of the membership. It would take a bit longer, but
> I think an Electoral Commission is the best way to legitimately proceed.
>
> Maybe the Polling Booth could be used to get an impression of what our
> active and more involved members actually think right now, and give some
> indication of whether the membership actually wants these nominees running
> the organisation (and I mean no offence to some good nominees in the frame).
>
> Richard H
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
> To: Jkhan <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>; <atlarge@execlub.org>;
> <webmaster@pollingbooth.info>; <webmaster@icannatlarge.com>;
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 7:12 AM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Tainted election? Prove it!!!
>
> > James Khan wrote:
> >
> > |  It has become self-apparent that this Election has been tampered with.
> > |  I can-not, will-not, and steadfast refuse to participate any
> > |  further in this Election.
> >
> > Your call, James.  But as I see it, the only "taint" on this election is
> the
> > bickering, back-biting, second and third-guessing, and members who can't
> > follow simple f@#$ing instructions!  I think it is significant that the
> > primary person making this claim is NOT A MEMBER OF THIS ORGANIZATIION!!!
> >
> > If you have any *provable* allegations about how this election is being
> > conducted, then bring 'em on!  But don't you *dare* impugn the honor of
> > myself and the few brave others who are trying to get something done for
> > this orgaization!  Something, I might add, that everyone was crying for!
> >
> > The nature of this group being what it is, I expected, going into this
> > election, to get a certian number of complaints!  But we got very few
> > complaints about the process we intended to implement, and even a few
> kudos
> > on our proposed process, whichj was posted numerous times on this forum as
> > it was being developed, and was modified numerous times based on member
> > inputs.  Why, then, are people complaining about the process now that
> we're
> > doing *exactly* what we said we would?
> >
> > The message we sent out was specific about how to make and second
> > nominations, accept or decline nominations, and how accepting nominees
> could
> > send in candidate statements. We are not responsible for:
> >
> > -  Members who use alternative venues to submit nominations instead of
> > simply clicking their "reply" button!
> >
> > -  Members who nominated non-members
> >
> > -  Non-members who nominated members
> >
> > -  Nominees who have failed to send in candidate statements (I have yet to
> > receive a single one yet to my personal e-mail address as the message
> > instructed! )
> >
> > To say that this election is "tainted" based on any of the above is
> > laughable at best, and at worst is potentially an attempt to subvert the
> > election.
> >
> > Bruce Young
> > Portland, Oregon USA
> > bruce@barelyadequate.info
> > http://www.barelyadequate.info
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Support democratic control of the Internet!
> > Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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

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