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

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

Richard and all fellow members,

 I am afraid that I cannot agree with you here Richard.  Joops Polling
booth, although a good toolin the right hands is subject to what the right
hands that should be.  To date as was evident with the IDNO
joop had a tendancy to modify the data, and did so.  Hence
such a tool as the Voting/Polling booth needs proper independent
management and control.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> 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

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