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

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

On 15:23 13/05/03, Jan Siren said:

At this point, I must respectfully disagree.  Every organization I have
ever belonged to that professed even a semblance of democratic process,
required *public* nominations and seconds.  The only secret part of the
process was the balloting itself, allowing the voters to express their
true preferences without fear of personal recrimination.  I don't believe
democracy is served by departing from this model.
Dear Jan,
This is an interesting issue. May be you did not vote for the first @large election?

I am 57. I an not an election pro. But ... I have in my life time been often elected to class, school, profession positions. I have been elected to probably more than ten BoDs of non profit associations and to the BoD of several small corporations. I created more than one hundred non-profit associations (for various usual purposes and because it was a normal way to create and manage a custome Minitel service, and I sold Minitel services). I still chair a few specialized non-profits. I have been CEO of several corporations (in several countries) and still am the CEO of a small one. I ran twice to my town council. I was even elected as a local delegate by a political party. I was many times a polling officer in corporations, non-profit and for public elections. I wrote election small programs.

Just to say that I run across some democratic processes and legislations. As you know also France has a certain democratic History.

I must say that the first time ever I met the concept of (self) nomination (without seconding) was the ICANN @large election less than three years ago. I then went across it again at IDNO (with seconding) where I was elected to the Execom and further on as a Polling Officer. To me it was purely a Joop's fancy. I discovered the way it worked more seriously when I was nominated by the DNSO/GA as a candidate to the BoD (with twice as many endorsers as any other one; hence not being elected - the one elected having the smallest number of endorsments ... but the most powerfull sponsors).

So you may understand why I just technically wander about what nominations may be useful for? From my reduced experience I only saw them used for string pulling and to bias elections. I certainly accept that nominations belong to your culture and may be of help. But it happens that they do not belong to mine; nor to most of the 190 countries of the world, and we manage to survive.

I respect and enforce them because Bruce and Eric voted for the rules of this election. But, to me, nominations mean three things (I know I will be harassed for that, but why should not be permitted to tell the truth and what most of the non-common law people think; why would we continue to have this debate marred by this non-question):
- voters are just too stupid children not to be babysitted and told who they may vote for.
- only committee controlled (purchased? manipulated?) candidates can be elected.
- how do you want someone who has not the guts to declare himself a candidate will have the guts one needs, to be a good elected one?

I also think that netocracy is everything but voting. As I said elsewhere we are in electronics not in electionism. For five years the whole @large community at GA, NCC, BC, IDNO, WG-Review, etc. has been blocked by less than 10 professionals of the "how will we vote on the way we will vote" question.
hwwv://www.v@ga.org
hwwv://www.v@idno.org
hwwv://www.v@icannatlarge.org/com
etc.
It is time this to be OVER and we move together toward serious matters.
They succeeded to get rid of all this ringmarole at ALAC - may be not in the best way - and to start working. We should be able to do the equivalent and to start working better than them.

The following quote IS I think is the netocracy true reference:

"we do not believe in kings, presidents, or voting.
we believe only in rough consensus and running code."
-- Dave Clark, original Internet Architect, 1981

Leissig wrote the same thing when he said that the constitution of the Internet does exist and is the source code. You do not nominate, second, endorse and vote packets. You expect them to move end to end. I keep saying that "you do not ask you phone to be democratic, but to work".

Otherwise the supposed "democracy" is the tyrannic noise of a few vocal ones. Who did nominated them?

I will believe in voting when 600.000.000 VIDs will have been issued and at least 400.000.000 ballots received. Until then you will pardon me but I will look at the competence, at the professionalism, at the dedication, at the vision, at the HUMILITY of those who spend time, energy and money to help us, who ever they may be (even fakes, as may be one of the candidates - I did not nominate but I seconded, out of trust in who nominated him - and after all, why not if he is good?).

I think we should only have asked who the Members wanted to see at the Panel among a list of anyone's quoted name (self quote included). As for the fist @large election. How do you want me to seriously nominate and second you for example? I do not know who you are, I do not even know if you are.

Now, we all know that this nomination issue is just to destablize the elected Panel after having tried to destabilize the election itself. Please let not faill into the boot'trap :-)

jfc



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