Re: [atlarge-discuss] http://icannatlarge.com

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Sotiris

At this juncture I regard the Polling Booth to be the source of authority
for this organisation, because it is the best mechanism we have at present
to empower the membership to define, to determine, to constrain, to veto.

It is for the membership themselves to determine which website to endorse,
what mission statement, which objectives, our relationship with ICANN etc
etc.

It is precisely because various panel members pursued their own agendas,
that we 'let' ALAC coalesce without formal protest and complaint. The wishes
of the membership were subordinated to panelists opinions.

Each one of us as members, as individuals, will choose which Internet User
initiative actually seems to be working, which group we most identify with.
We can also choose to belong to more than one initiative at the same time.

At the present point in time I am open-minded, and just interested to see
which initiative actually works.

In order of preference (but subject to change) I favour:

1. A constitution which gives full authority to the Polling process so that
power to define mission and policy is fully in the hands of the membership.
I would personally prefer to see this linked to a completely new website,
with subdomains operated by local at large groups in their own languages.

2. An entirely new organisation, whose structure and mechanisms are
constructed in advance by a small group of people, and then offered as a
package to Internet Users to 'buy into' and join. That way you bypass months
or years of haggling, and as numbers grow into thousands, you have agreed
procedures to democratise.

3. The present set up, which seems to put panelists in place and leave them
to make their own decisions, which in my experience leads to dissent, drift,
and only retrospective accountability. This set up is too easily captured by
people whose agendas are hidden at the time of election, but which subvert
the real wishes of the membership.

In the event, we have an imminent election result, and the question is what
you do with that.

I advocate:

An immediate poll, using the Polling Booth, to propose a short period of
time to review the process that has beeen used, and the performance of new
members; to define the mission of the organisation; to define the tasks we
want the panelists to carry out; to call for a whole membership vote on a
clear constitution which hands power to define and veto to the Membership
through a Polling system etc etc.

Especially in the circumstances of failed panels and disputed elections, it
is essential the powers of panelists are formally limited, and the panel
subordinated to the Membership. The use of Polling should be formally
adopted.

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
To: At Large Discuss <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:08 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] http://icannatlarge.com


> Take a look at http://icannatlarge.com and then compare it with
> http://icannatlarge.org and tell me which looks more like an authentic
> organization web site?  It's no surprise that http://icannatlarge.com IS
> the original organization site, especially if one looks to the regular
> updating and information that is available there, which is quite unlike
> http://icannatlarge.org...
>
> I believe the official web site of our organization is the original web
> site, the one funded by Pindar Wong, legitimized by Esther Dyson, and
> created by Joop Teernstra.
>
> I think it's time we went back to our roots.  Anybody agree?
>
> --Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> -----------
>
> "The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
> ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
> But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
> modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
>
> From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
> and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
> minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
> power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
> about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
> nothing."
>      --Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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