[fwd] Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization (from: jefsey@wanadoo.fr)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Mis-addressed, too.

----- Forwarded message from Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr> -----

From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 17:33:15 +0200
Subject: Re: [ICANN-EU] Horizontal organization
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2

I fully support your position. 5% of the informed voters
only have endorsed candidates in a non final way. Also,
please, let stop about this "democratic" comedy of some.
Voters are mostly here by chance or at the request of a
candidate. Only the issues regarding this specific ML list
management may be democraticaly decided - if every
member may vote - otherwise this is pure technocratic
lobbying. Nothing against it, but let use the proper words
if we want to acheive a proper job.
Take care.
Jefsey
http://utel.net/jefsey.htm

At 16:41 21/08/00, you wrote:
>On 2000-08-21 15:28:08 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>
> > This is basically what I thought. We need to start right now, and
> > there must be some way to select the members of this regional At
> > Large council, because otherwise it would not have any
> > credibility, and it would just be a self-nominated group of
> > individuals. This is why I think that requiring some proven level
> > of support in the membership is a key to make this concept work.
>
>I'm not sure that the N best-placed people from the current
>pre-election (or from the actual election) are necessarily more
>credible.  What about persons who may have considered running for a
>place on the ballot, but prefered not to do this since they
>considered other candidates to have larger chances?  What about
>those who have stepped back in favor of other candidates?
>
>That's why, instead of a "self-appointed" body, I still suggest an
>"open for all" round.  Note that I don't doubt that the presence of
>the candidates, and the fact that a possible director will
>communicate to such a round (ok, I'm dreaming ;->) will lend some
>credibility to it.  Closing the "council" _now_ would take quite
>some credibility away.
>
> > Then, this board, cooperating with the Director, should start to
> > think at better ways to self-organize, and also to a proposal to
> > be submitted to ICANN for his study on At Large membership. It
> > should also set up the general and announcement mailing lists or
> > newsgroups as we are discussing here.
>
>Sorry, but this should _absolutely_ _not_ be the job of any closed
>"board".  I can obviously accept the concept that some board may
>have to be installed in order to communicate and translate opinions
>and arguments between non-English and English-speaking groups. That
>is, some kind of board may be helpful to evaluate and summarize what
>comes from the community.
>
>However, I still believe that drafting of actual concepts and
>suggestions should be done in the open, and in a process open to the
>general public.
>
>If we really want to create written concepts intended for
>publication, I suggest we should mimic the essentials of the IETF WG
>process, with drafts, and some final, consensus-supported document.
>
>--
>Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>


----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
Thomas Roessler                         <roessler@does-not-exist.org>