RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: you response is urgent

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

James Khan wrote:

|  The ratification of the Icannatlarge Open Source Constitution as
|  a 'Doctrine
|  of Popular Sovereignty' is no different that the ratification of a Human
|  Candidate. This said ratification process has been engaged herein by the
|  Icannatlarge Community.
|
|  -
|
|  It has been nominated, and should be able to take its place among the
|  Candidates to be incorporated into the forthcoming Ballot.

And a policy document is going to effectively direct our group's processes
how?

Can we, for the moment, limit our candidate list to live human beings?

However, that said, the Doctrine of Popular Sovereignty should certianly
apply to this group, but the appropriate way to do that would be to write it
such language into the bylaws of the organization.  If you're up to helping
us with this . . . !  :)

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!


|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: Jkhan [mailto:Jkhan@MetroMgr.com]
|  Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 7:46 AM
|  To: bruce@barelyadequate.info; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; Joop
|  Teernstra
|  Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: you response is urgent
|
|
|  Bruce & Joop,
|
|
|
|  In addition to these, the ' Icannatlarge Open Source Constitution ' was
|  Nominated and
|
|   atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; webmaster@pollingbooth.info;
|  webmaster@icannatlarge.com had been properly NOTICED.
|
|  (also see: icannatlatrge.com/forum/Third Panel Election, Nominations and
|  seconds )
|
|
|
|  I  have reservation with regards to the procedures recently
|  exorcized. There
|  is no reason to suppress the Freedom of Speech, regardless if it is
|  transmitted through a Human 'Candidate' or 'Doctrine of Popular
|  Sovereignty'. Both are Candidates and deserve placement on said Election
|  Ballots.  The protection of human rights and freedoms based on the World
|  Constitutions and the laws, in accordance with the principles
|  and norms of
|  International Law, guarantees these Rights.
|
|
|
|  The ratification of the Icannatlarge Open Source Constitution as
|  a 'Doctrine
|  of Popular Sovereignty' is no different that the ratification of a Human
|  Candidate. This said ratification process has been engaged herein by the
|  Icannatlarge Community.
|
|  -
|
|  It has been nominated, and should be able to take its place among the
|  Candidates to be incorporated into the forthcoming Ballot.
|
|
|
|  James Khan
|
|
|  -- Original Message -----
|  From: "Joop Teernstra" <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
|  To: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
|  Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:33 AM
|  Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] RE: [Atlarge] Re: @LARGE ELECTION: you
|  response is urgent
|
|
|  > At 05:40 p.m. 4/05/2003, bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:
|  > >Joop Teernstra wrote:
|  > >
|  > >|  Not allowing for seconding gives far too much power to the
|  nominator.
|  > >
|  > >Who said nomination needn't be seconded?
|  >
|  > Your Polling Officer (and primary Nominator of a rather ridiculous (or
|  > Machiavellian) list of candidates), Jefsey Morfin said this.
|  >
|  > (message dated  May 2)
|  > "2. the nominees do not need to be seconded (however all those
|  we listed
|  > together are, what is good)"
|  >
|  > I appreciate your original message and perhaps you can work
|  this out with
|  > him, so that we end up with a proper slate of candidates.
|  >
|  > >The message that went out
|  > >requesting nominations clearly said otherwise, to wit:
|  > >
|  > >3. Persons nominated by more than one person will be considered to be
|  > >seconded. Those nominated only once will be identified on the At Large
|  > >Discuss list, and readers of the Discuss list will be given the
|  opportunity
|  > >to second their nomination.
|  >
|  > *All*  members should have that right. They do not have to accept
|  > un-seconded candidates. We need candidates that have a minimum
|  of support.
|  >
|  > That acceptances can be made  to a private address and then
|  published (or
|  > not) is also wrong when acceptances can and should  be made publicly.
|  >
|  > To answer Hugh's question: I hesitate because I am very reluctant to
|  > endorse such a procedure.
|  >
|  >
|  >
|  > -joop-
|  >
|  >
|  >
|  > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|  > 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
|
|
|


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