RE: [atlarge-discuss] Ballot questions

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

| The institutional memory of this organization is
| derived from the membership, many of whom had 3
| years of day to day in involvement in the ICANN
| process, whereby all proceedings had to fit
| with DNSO mandated criteria.

And myself and the many members who are not ICANN insiders should care about
this why?  This smacks of the same "us old ICANNers know better than you
what's best for the At Large" attitude that myself and others have been
fighting from day one.

ICANNATLARGE.ORG is a new thing.  It may have roots in the ALSC process, but
it's a big reach to say that an Internet user organization should in any way
be beholden to the "criteria" of a Domain name holder's group, particularly
one established by ICANN, and later disbanded by them, for their own
reasons, and to serve their own needs, not ours.  We have no need to comply
with any process an ICANN organization developed, and many reasons not to!

But more to the point, where were all of you old ICANNers when Jefsey, Eric
and I were faced with generating up an election process from scratch?  It's
easy to jump in after the process is started and complain about its
construction.

| In short, Jefsey's version of what is a fair and
| democratic election falls far short of what the
| vast majority of members that migrated here from
| the DNSO have become accustomed to.

Given that we had limited time and resources, and virtually no support, I
though we did well.  I don't disagree that things could be better, and we
should be developing both a complete in-house voting system, and the bylaws
to govern it.  But again, I don't feel that this organization has any
obligation to set up a system that keeps former DNSO members happy!


| Oh I see. So the Polling Committee is acting as both Secretariat and
| Watchdogs (as understood in the institutional memory), but
| the Watchdogs
| themselves cannot fulfill any such their role since they are
| being denied
| the necessary data.

Huh?  No.  All of us are getting everything.  The only thing the Watchdogs
didn't see is the names of the voters on the ballots, and that was at
*their* request!  But they did see the voter ID.

Our goal in holding this election was to make it as open as possible while
still keeping the voters' personal information and who they voted for
private.  I thought we succeeded in both cases.  There were a lot of eyes on
this election, and they all saw the same thing.

Let's move on.

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