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

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

More like this please.

Joanna

> From: bruce@barelyadequate.info [mailto:bruce@barelyadequate.info]
> 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
>


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