RE: [atlarge-discuss] Some points of view - Limits and common sense

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

| Your English is as bad (if not worse) than Jefsey's.  I did not
| understand your post.  How do you expect yo work on a panel whose
| primary language will be English when your English is so poor?

Funny, I don't speak Spanish, but I understood him just fine.  First Jefsey
and now Mauro.  Why do you insist that others that speak a second language
meet *your* expectations for eloquence?

Since you don't understand him, Sotiris, I'll translate for you, because he
makes very good points! Mauro can corerect me if I translate wrong!  (BTW,
this should *not* be construed as criticism of Mauro's writing, only
Sotiris' ability -- or willingness! -- to read it!)

| >- I wonder: when you were chosen, if you have been it, who did vote
| >for you, did they know you personally?.
| >Or did they make an act of
| >trust for your references, your performance in other places and
| >organizations, did they observe your currículum and did they conclude
| >that you were a very good candidate?

Mauro asks: When you were nominated, if you were, did those that voted for
you know you personally?  Or rather, was their vote an act of trust based on
what they could learn about you here and in other forums?

My answer: I'm sure that when Sotiris was up for election last year, a great
many people who didn't know him still voted for him.  As for Michael
Sherril, to whom you replied directly, I don't remember him running for
office.

| >- If this organization will base the participation of the new members
| >on the antiquity in the same organization, why didn't we create a
| >private and exclusive club for membership and invitation?.

Mauro asks: If this organization is going to limit its leadership to those
with a history in this organization, as Michael demands, why don't we just
create a private, exclusive club with membership by invitation only?

My answer: We already have that: it's called ICANN  and their AL*C groups!
We want to be something better!

| >For what reason to have thousands of members if alone spectators and
people
| >will be forgotten to those that we will veto their performance for
| >that you/they are new?. And we will let them them to accumulate years
| >(what doesn't mean knowledge neither aptitude) before
| >allowing them to enter to some door.

Mauro asks:  What is the point of having thousands of members if they are
considered unworthy to hold office because they are relatively new to the
group?  And how many years do they have to wait before they pass your magic
threshold (that has nothing to do with knowledge or aptitude!) and are
considered "old" enough to hold office?

My answer: Time with the group should not be a factor for election.

| >- Does the one that a person doesn't have experience in an
| >organization, make it ignorant of the matter?

Mauro asks: If a member has only been with the organization a short time,
does that mean they are ignorant of the subject matter being discussed?

My answer:  Of course not!  I was involved in the at large for over a year
before I understood most of the acronyms!  You today likely know far more
than I did back then.  Despite that, knowledge of DNS issues even isn't a
mandatory requirement, since you will absorb that hanging around here.
Rather, we are looking for members less familiar with the status quo and
more intersted it helping us forge a compelling voice for Internet users.

| >- If we will have in consideration only the contributions that each
| >person has made to @Large, do we erase him the currículum of a blow,
| >do we ignore the rest of merits and activities that she has had in
| >another place?

Mauro asks: If this organization only considers as valid contributions made
in this organization, do we in one stroke invalidate all the person's good
work elsewhere?

My answer: Part of the process set up is a site where candidates can post
information on past accomplishments, their philosophy, and what their vision
is for this organization.  Any good work you've done in the past is
certianly appropriate.

| >- Is democracy the one that only remembers its members when the votes
| >are needed?

Mauro asks:  Can you call it a democracy if the members are ignored except
when their votes are needed?

My answer:  No.  But with all the conversation your post started, I can
expect you're no longer feeling ignored!  :)

| >- Can it be said that @Large the representative of the users of
| >Internet will be if the directors are eternally the same ones?.
| >(Although they were heroes of Internet and this creature's parents?)

Mauro asks:  Can we claim that this organization truely represents Internet
users if our leaders never change?

My answer: No.  But again, I suspect the next Panel may be the one that can
actually get things off the ground.  And I suspect there will be few old
faces on it.

| >- For what reason did they summon us?, for what reason to be bothered
| >in calling to new nominated if they have them so much fear?

Mauro asks:  Why go to the trouble of calling for new nominations if you're
afraid to vote for them

My answer:  I'm not, but Michael obviously is.

| >The new ones possible spies are!?. Who guaranteed us that who today
| >they occupy the main seats (in ICANN, @Large, ISOC, R.A.L.O., etc),
| >spies or bad people were not when they called each other to vote them
| >in last years?. They asked us us to trust them for that you/they told
| >us that they were good that had many merits that were physical people
| >and that they will work for the organization. Nobody knew
| them, except
| >their nearer friends and the co-workers, but from these latitudes we
| >had to trust in that the very little information that we had of all
| >them and that we could verify it was correct.

Mauro asks:  So you think new members may be ICANN spies?  What guarantee
did we have when those who chair and Internet-related bodies were elected in
previous years?  None the less we had to trust that they were real people
and had the merits tghey claimed.  And even though no one but their closest
friends and coworkers knew them, we had to trust them from afar based on the
little information about them we could verify.

My answer:  This is how online demoracy works.  An eelement of trust is
required.

| >- These elections have been very questioned. It has been said that
| >they are illegitimate and that there are not guarantees. On the
| >contrary I have not said anything for that people that are organizing
| >it and controlling, they inspire me trust, for their acts, for their
| >form of to proceed and to act, I trust the information that I know
| >about them and in the references that I have been able to verificaren
| >Internet and with other people that assure who are. I have
| left doubts
| >and things that will improve in the next elections, but it is
| >impossible to have the total security that there are not minimum
| >irregularities.

Mauro notes:  There have been a lot of questions about these elections.
Some say that they are illegitimate because they are not properly verified.
On the contrary, I have nothing bad to say about the persons organizing and
controlling it.  In fact their acts and the way they are actng inspire my
trust, and I trust the information that I've learned about them, through
references I have been able to verify elsewhere on the Internet, and through
other persons.  I have little doubt that things will improve in the next
election, but it is impossible to have perfect security and not have a few
minor irregularities.

My answer: Thanks for the vote of confidence!

| >- Who does it guarantee me that you are not an it spies of ICANN or
| >ISOC that is trying to avoid new people to enter to the directive
| >positions of @Large?, who does it guarantee me that you
| won't create a
| >Panel that governs for an indefinite period?. They will
| surely tell me
| >that many people would speak to your favor and they would
| give me very
| >good arguments to defend and to certify that you are of trust. They
| >would give me hundred of websites that they mention your
| name and your
| >work. You would send me your picture in several events and next to
| >famous and reliable people. Why then, cannot you apply those same
| >approaches for new people in to the organization?.

Mauro asks: How can you guarantee that *you* are not an ICANN or ISOC spy
trying to prevent new voices from being elected to leadership positions in
the At Large?  Who will guarantee that you won't create a Panel that never
regsigns?  I'm sure you can find people who will speak favorably about you,
and make compelling arguments to defend you and your trustworthiness.  They
could point to hundreds of Web sites that mention your name, and your work,
and you could even send me picture of yourself attending important events
and standing with famous, reliable persons.  Why then can't you apply those
same measures to validate new people in the organization.

My answer:  They can't!  However, it goes beyond that.  In this body, your
relationships with famous ICANNers is likely to lose you points, not earn
them!  :)


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