[atlarge-discuss] Bruce, your not paying attention! to:Re: [atlarge-discuss] Nominees list

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

Bruce and all fellow members,

  You have not been paying attention and now because of that fact
which has been pointed out to you before by various members,
you now misstate the Poll that Joop held.  The results which
Richard posted to this list several time now.  The total
number of participants was OVER 10% Bruce!  Hence making
such a poll at least a representative sample.  As such, it is a
good enough representation of where the members stood on that
poll and at that time.

bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> | 881 members (a clean list of those who wish to receive
> | announcements) ,
> | including Jefsey, Bruce and Eric were informed of the pre-nomination
> | process that I facilitated in the Polling Booth.
>
> On whose authority did you stand up a nominating process alternative to the
> official one?  And don't say "the membership": a poll of less than 10% of
> our membership is not a valid mandate to implement anything!  You have a
> responsibility to use your forum to support the official processes of this
> organization.  Instead you chose to go into competition with them.
>
> | As I promised, I spent a great deal of time to bring the
> | nomination process
> | outside of this mailing list and this was necessary in order
> | that we do not
> | end up with a few default candidates and no real election.
>
> The official nominating process was not limited to this forum.  Every user
> was sent a message.  To nominate people, they only had to hit their reply
> button, add their nomination, and hit send.  An alternative nominating
> method was not necessary.  All you succeded in doing was confusing the
> membership.
>
> | The only problem with this list is that it is preliminary and
> | that the nominators are anonymous members.
>
> No, the problem with this list was two-fold:
>
>         1. It was not in compliance with the official nominating process e-mailed
> to all members. It therefore confused the membership into thinking there was
> more than one official method to nominate/second candidates.  There was not.
> This effort of yours was the equavalent of the Portland Oregonian newspaper
> running an alternative polling system in paralell with the official State of
> Oregon election system, then demanding that their inputs, which the state
> has no way to validate, should be included by the State in the official
> talley.  I know what the State would say!  Fortunately for our members, we
> were unwilling to make *them* pay for *your* actions.
>
>         2. Given that you stood up an unauthorized, confusing alternate process to
> gather nominations and seconds, you had an obligation to clearly indicate
> that this was so, and to forward any inputs you gathered to myself and
> Jefsey.  You did neither.  Instead you told us to "look here" for them and
> do the work ourselves.  Even though we had no requirement to participate in
> your wholly unauthorized process, we did not want the membership to suffer,
> so we did our best to ensure that inputs made on your system were included
> in our numbers.  But we had no mandate to do so.  And are not responsible if
> inputs made on your system somehow missed getting into the official list.
> If accuracy were important to you, *you* should have been the one to ensure
> accuracy, given the alternative system was your responsibility.
>
> | Therefore , I am willing to act as Nominator of all members
> | who got 2 or
> | more ticks and were not yet officially nominated otherwise.
>
> Under our original nominating procedures, any member nominated by two or
> more persons was automatically considered seconded.  This action of yours
> was unnecessary and actually counterproductive: it gave the impression that
> you were "mass seconding" these persons, which tweaked the sensibilities of
> every amature conspiracy theorist on the list, and threw the nominations of
> otherwise-acceptable candidates into controversy.
>
> Joop, I know your heart was in the right place, but your actions were
> inappropriate, added unneeded confusion and controversy to an already
> controversial and contentious election process, and caused a lot of added
> work and grief for myself and Jefsey.  If, in the future, you wish your
> Polling Booth to be considered an official voting alternative for this
> organization, then politick for same post-election.  But until the
> membership validates that idea in an election, I would ask that you respect
> the election procedures the next Panel puts in place, and refrain from
> running a competing election process of your own.
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
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