Re: [atlarge-discuss] Apology and Explanation for Joop

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

Bruce and all fellow members,

bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:

> Richard Henderson wrote:
>
> | Only about 20% of our registered members participated in last week's
> | election too...
>
> Indeed.  But 100% of them were contacted.  Joop contacted no one to report
> the existance of the poll.  And even if he did, he isn't the keeper of the
> official mailing list, nor should he be.

  He did contact everyone or member via this forum regarding his
poll's.  However, as such a process is not, and was not than,
and official tool to be used, I did not participate in any of those
polls.

>
>
> | The other interesting thing was that people expressed
> | readiness to continue
> | using the Poll on a regular basis.
>
> Of course.  The same ones who preferred it in th past prefer it now.
> Circular logic.  Proves nothing.

  Good point I must admit.

>
>
> | The real issue is how to give the Poll (a) enhanced
> | credibility (b) a formal constitutional role
>
> Yes.  That is what I've been saying all along.  But Joop has never been
> willing to give up control.  As long as it is hosted on a site he controls,
> and has no oversight, it is not trustworthy.

  This is the KEY point with Joop's polling booth.

>
>
> | Joop's Poll was a brave voice representing the actual
> | opinions of actual
> | members, at a time when the Panel was inert and in danger of
> | hijacking this
> | organisation to ICANNland and ALAC.
>
> I don't disagree.  I only say that, as currently implemented, it is not a
> valid source for determining the genuine concensus of the membership.

  Exactly right here.  However neither was/is Jefsey's DOS election
process...

> |
> | "Do you support a regular (once a month) Poll?"
> |
> | I am convinced the majority of members would say "Yes."
>
> Actually we asked that during the election, and you're right.  And I was one
> of the opnes voting for it. I'm all for the idea of a monthly poll.  I'm
> just oppposed to using Joop's system, as currently implemented.
>
> | This does not mean micro-management... this means real
> | grassroots democratic involvement, instead of just
> | delegating and saying, "Oh well, the panel will
> | be accountable at the next election".
>
> I don't disagree here either.  But there is a lot of work that needs to go
> on between polls, and the Panel members need to be empowered to do that
> work.

 The members either are empowered now, or they never will be.

>
>
> Actually, Richard, I don't think we're that far off in our thinking.  It's
> just that you're talking broad-brush concepts, while I, as the techie I am,
> am looking beyond that to the much-messier world of actually implementing
> the concepts.

  Concepts don't implement, Bruce.

>
>
> One of the few crystal-clear mandates we have from the membership is that
> ICANNATLARGE.ORG is to be our official voice.  However, so far Joop has been
> unwilling to accept this and continues to run his own parallel operation
> that many members mistake for us!  Richard, since you have emerged as the
> primary champion of Joop's polling system (other than Joop himself!) perhaps
> you should approach him and ask him the following:
>
>         1.  Is he willing to move his Polling Booth to ICANNATLARGE.ORG and allow
> two or more technically-qualified members access to monitor the system
> during polls, to ensure things aren't being manipulated.
>
>         2.  Is he willing to agree that the only polling questions asked on his
> system are to be developed via a polling committee of some sort after broad
> discussion by the membership?
>
>         3.  Is he willing to cease all e-mailing of the membership on his own
> behalf?  All messages going to the membership should be sent out through
> official channels only, in whatever manner the membership decides those are
> configured.
>
>         4.  Is he willing (and here's the big one!) to turn ICANNATLARGE.COM into a
> redirector to ICANNATLARGE.ORG, and cease publishing online as if he
> officially represents this organization?  I would even strongly support him
> as Webmaster for the ICANNATLARGE.ORG site if he were to do this.
>
> If he is willing to do these things in the best interests of the
> organization, then I have no problem with using his Polling Booth.  But as
> long as he continues to run in parallel with us, publishing things and
> conducting polls to further his own agenda, I cannot support using his
> system.
>
> 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

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