Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission

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

Richard and all fellow members,

  As I have been observing along with other members here
and similar to the DNSO GA now the GNSO, there seems
to be a small group within this fledgling organization that desires
to make any and all decisions for the members whether the
members are in agreement or not.  Hugh along with Abel
at least are in that group...  It is as if the members of this
fledgling organization are not able or incapable of determining
together via their vote, to make such decisions according
to the Jefsey-elected false and potentially fraudulent, so
called "panel"...

 Hence I am in agreement with you again Richard in your
final comments/remarks/statements [See below], that
any and all decisions for this membership based organization
must be affirmed by the members via their vote.

  I would also add, that closing off effective input directly
to any legitimate panel, whenever we have one, is paramount
to good process and derives from such input directly, good
product.

Richard Henderson wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hugh Blair <hblair@hotfootmail.com>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Henderson
> > >
> > > Where Panel opinion and Membership opinion diverge, whose
> > > opinion will take precedence?
> >
> > Richard, you have the wrong question because you don't
> > understand the intent. Here's how I see this happening:
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> No I don't have the wrong question, I have the question I wanted to ask.
>
> I wasn't alluding to the specific decisions on how to constitute the Panel,
> but to the long-term relationship between the Poll and the Panel.
>
> Say here are 120 issues polled in the coming 12 months...
>
> Say the Panel disagrees with the expressed opinion of the Membership in 7 of
> those issues.
>
> "Where Panel opinion and Membership opinion diverge, whose opinion will take
> precedence?"
>
> That is my question.
>
> Abel implies that in such cases, the contested issues would be put to a
> "full vote". But some would argue that an elected Panel should be allowed
> the slack to exercise its own judgements, contrary to Poll findings,
> particularly where the result is marginal.
>
> And then you are into very grey and contentious areas.
>
> What I'm saying is that to pre-empt future conflict, we should state clearly
> the rules of precedence.
>
> Personally, I do not like the argument that you let elected Panelists do
> what they want, and everything will be alright in the end because you can
> always vote them out later. I dislike that argument because the damage may
> be done in the meantime.
>
> Personally, I've advocated all along that we should create a constitution
> where the Membership is always sovereign, and has powers to intervene. The
> Polling Process can be part of that Process of Intervention.
>
> If we are bottom-up, and implementing the wishes of the membership, then we
> should safeguard the membership's priority. That does not mean running the
> whole org by Poll. Far from it. In any Polling Vote, there should be an
> option to "Allow the Panel to decide on grounds that I do not have an
> informed view of the issue"... something like that.
>
> There should also be a means of distinguishing serious polling issues from
> frivolous ones.
>
> But where issues are serious, and polled, and the majority want to re-direct
> the Panel, then the constitution must re-enforce that right (IMHO). It
> should not be left to an unwritten 'understanding'.
>
> No doubt all these matters will be addressed *before* any move to initiate
> the Poll. And yes, I'm happy to be patient about all this, with thanks for
> your thoughts and efforts!
>
> But I conclude -  the line management:
>
> Members > Panel
> Members > Poll > confirm Panel policy or re-direct it.
>
> But it is always the Members who are the controlling guardians of their own
> organisation.
>
> yrs,
>
> Richard H
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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