[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Tainted vision

On 03:13 10/05/03, Joop Teernstra said:
At 06:12 p.m. 9/05/2003, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
Grit you teeth: we don't know you and giving blind trust (as I did with Bret Fausett and Curtis Kularski, for example) is just not advisable in cyberspace.
Trying to be a "leader" in any sense here is a martyr's role.
I do not think any one tries to be a leader here, Joop. This is where you make a confusion and do not listen.

 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?
It is not the number of complaints about your proposed procedure that is relevant, it is the substance of those complaints.
You do not seem to listen to sound advice.
(Mandates and *accepted* election rules first, then elections)
Your advices are sound but ill timed.

I understand that you, Richard, Danny want the best and we agree. But we are very far from the date it will be discussed (if it needs be). When I read you, I really wander in which world you live and how you may think you will reach your dreams.

This election is about two things and nothing more.

1. an elected panel. a new boostrap with a legitimacy. Not to repeat the IDNO.
2. a list of indications by the Membership so this Panel understands what it should do. Not to repeat the last year mistakes.

If we succeed in doing that it will be a success. Oherwise we may immediately close that shop and may be think about a better organization because we will have found that the netocracy has nothing to do with the common law democracy (what most of the people of he world but the common law people suspect for centuries).

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! )
Welcome to the world of herding cats. People here do not "obey instructions".
They must be accommodated.
They have rights when it comes to elections:

1. the right to nominate and second
1a. the right to reject unseconded candidates.
2. the right to know those who accept their candidacy.
3. the right to question the candidates
4. the right to elect them to an office of their choice.
5. the right to set the mandate for that office and the term of office of the elected officers.
Sure.
How many of them used that right to nominate?
How many of them used that right to second?
Who nominated you? Who seconded you?

To elect them to an office? Which Office, defined by who? You will define that once you are elected!
A step at a time.

There is a song in French, I do not know if you have it too abut the best way to walk. Which is to put on feet on the other one to fall down and to do it again. This is what I feel you try to do.

We do not elect a BoD, we try to elect a bootstrap Panel. You will spend years with it writing it a Charter... I am sure it will keep you buzy ten years with the revisions. But get elected first. This is not the IDNA boostrap with ten confederates. It is 1000 members. As you well explain, they do not trurst you because of your name: they have to filter you, to see you elected, then to become the Chair.

Today the members want to be permitted to question the candidates. But mostl they want it to be over and to get the noise ended and something in 5 years to develop. We had started the questions when disrupters came in. I would suggest we forget the disrupters and start working seriously. After all, once this election is over I will go, but as far as I understand you, Danny and others want to stay.

All these rights need time to be exercised properly.
This is true and untrue. This is true if the Members are permitted to debate. Our Members are fed-up with all this bickering, they want it over. All they want is to have a mailing list were there is cooperation on the matters they are interested in. Not on "how will we vote on the way we will vote". This is the only theme a few have for 5 years. Don't you think people start getting bored? I think, I know they are.

Anyway I see no result from all that for years. Only amateurs believing they are Messiahs. I am interested in networking, network services, technology, governance policy, international development, digital divide, innovation, telematic, e-organization of the territory, cyberwarfare and security, telecom relations, rate structure, equal access, human e-digital rights, namespace continuity, IDNA, domotic, telemedecine, e-learning, OPES, DNS+, Uninames, digital sovereignty, user system open architecture, e-community support, GNU development consortiums, ITU, new generation networks, IPv6, GNP redevelopment, ent economy, second Internet choc, prvacy laws, Passport bugs, US international trade abnd privacy, violations, multilateralism, network testing, system modelization, multilinguism, technical diectionary, kid protection, spam filtering, etc, etc.

I must say I do not give a damn about your charter, about AmerICANN, IANA and so forth. I am from the real world. And I do think there are people in here who are in the same league. These are those I am interested in. ICANNers, ALACers, IDNOers, sorry, but I am not interested. I respect them, I am spending my night trying to help them today, but I am not interested (that is if they do exist apart from the few one looking for a position at ICANN we all know).

I am interested in @large members of the network governance. Not to fight ICANN, or this or that. Not to follow adaptative nomination rules, you claim for you and disclaim for others. An elected person is first a candidate, if he must be babysitted to become a candidate, why do you want him to change once elected? I am interested in those who are really @large and wants to share in the governance, building networks services, in developping wi-fi, in creating businesses, in helping others, in defending the rights to the people against the e-colinization, in working on alternatives to Longhorn, in cooperating with lawmakers to protect the people of the world against TIA, CIA, NTIA etc not in blahblah but through active work and innovation, I ma interested in people of culture, of trade, of experience, of enthusiam digging into the mankind history and sciences to adapt the network systems of today to our cultures and civilizations, ... I am not interested in people harassing me for theyr own vision of a BS, but in people ready to rape me to defend their own individual rights, interests to development, to protect their familly, to develop their country ...

Then I am sorry but the bickering of these last three days on this list is of absolute NO interest to me, and I am sure to everyone else, but may be to the losers who mirror their ego into it.

Now you can shout at me, you can spam me as someone did to Claude, you can keep insulting us, .. but our members on this mailing list are of far more interest. Just look at what they write. Look at what they respond. Look at the way they are humble, nice, serious .... the way they are great!

And I know you agree.

So why don't we just stop and start questionning the candidates, and free our mailing list from the childish diatribes which mare it for three days?

Are you really afraid we all succeed together?

The elementary principles of "how to" elect people are not exactly new.
Even if we do not have Charter rules yet to govern our elections, this does not mean that you get an untainted election when you ignore the elementary principles.

BTW, you have not yet answered why I am not listed as Nominee on your "official" website. Who *are* your watchdogs to send complaints to?

My Nomination and seconding is a matter of public record.
Joop, why to say such petty things?

You are the best informed to know that this information is updated each time there is a change and at your full disposal.

Dont reproach Bruce what you don't want to be reproached to you. There is a life outside of all this. You are listed. Ad every word you said in you current reply is listed.

BTW we wait for yor final decision: you asked one night?
Still no response.

We wait for that response too :-)
Let have fun and develop together.

Dear, how sad is you Internet, Folks.
I believe I am on an ICANN list!
jfc


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