[ga-full] Re: [ga] IDNO list chair election results

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 23:29 17/02/00 -0600, Andy Gardner wrote:

>Take the latest election, for example. Joop decided the method (votes for
>multiple people, no weighting). Joop later decided to add two more voting
>topics, without consulting with _anyone_.
>

I have been elected to the Polling Committee that is  tasked to make these
decisions. They are taken in the best interests of all Voters.

It might be more honest to tell this forum  *what* those 2 topics were:
1. asking the voters in the election wether they were happy with the
multiple votes option or if they preferred the single vote option
2. If they wanted the voting results (in future elections) displayed in
real-time or at the end of the voting period.

This kind of polls empower the voters, it takes nothing away from them. 

>Anyone that dissents with Joop's view, or even could possibly become (in
>Joops opinion) a dissenter, is gagged, thrown off committees, or if there
>is an emergency, an entire committee is disbanded.
>
This is untrue.  Who has been gagged?  Walsh and JW still take most of the
list's bandwidth. The list Chair is reponsible for his own actions over
committees he appoints. There is a big difference between appointed and
elected committees.
The ill-fated first steering committee had reached the end of the term for
which the voters had given it a mandate.  

As a result of the coup attempt by a few members of the SC, healthy, if
passionate, debate ranged about the Powers of such Steering Committees and
the IDNO as a group finally agreed on the contents of the "re-railing
proposal" (see www.idno.org/democinaction.htm) that did away with it until
its size, procedure and powers could be defined in a ratified Charter.
The full truth is in the archives, not in the broad insinuations given here.

In the meantime, the List Assembly has functioned, by majority rule,
frustrating the undemocratic ambitions of "the Gang of FUD" (I didn't coin
this term) who could not find a majority for a takeover. ("wresting
control", in Thornton's words) 
If you want to get anything changed, make the motion in the List Assembly
and find a majority for it. That's how the idno  functions and how it
should function as long as I can help it.


>Joop's personal view of events is placed on the IDNO website and contrued
>to be "the way things happened", via selective editing of what appears.
>
Any member can make a motion to add (or delete)  text to the website.
If there is no consensus, ask for a vote. Or ask for the formation of a
website committee.
Just do it, instead of spreading FUD on lists like these.

>It's a shame, but as it stands now, the IDNO is a dead duck.
>
>If the IDNO is going to make progress, Joop is going to have to step away
>completely and let the organisation mould itself. 

Andy Gardner, nominated by William Walsh ran the election on this platform
and did not win. That is the will of the members.

I will gladly step away when the majority of the members wants that. But if
a handful can demand who steps away and who does not, and use any means of
bullying, lies and defamation to get their way, rather than the vote of the
membership, the idno will indeed become a dictatorship.

It has become clear that ICANN does not want an IDNO that runs as a
successful on-line democracy. 
Therefore, if the idno does not fade away, it must either capture or
destroy it. 

All I can be accused of is  making sure that it is the *majority* of the
membership that keeps control over the direction the idno will take.
Anything else would make it easy fodder for capture.
My own idea's are irrelevant unless I can persuade the majority that they
are sound. 

The IDNO cannot go forward as long as it is still paralyzed by a power
struggle. It is true that I am still doing far too much of the work, but it
was either that or walk away and surrender to the bullies. 
Too few others have found it worth their time and energy to stand up and be
counted. People have been intimidated by the virulence of the attacks, of
which this GA list has thankfully only seen a small sample.  They prefer to
lurk and vote their convictions quietly.

The only proper way to put an end to this energy sapping power struggle is
to let the voters decide, one way or the other, who they want in and who
they want out.



--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org  (or direct:) 
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html