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

[Andy Gardner <andy@navigator.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.

That was the election where you were well down in the voting ranks until
the last few hours, where the number of votes for Joop suddenly surged
ahead (past IIRC two people who do not agree with Joop's personal IDNO
vision) - enough for him to get on the committee? I've never seen that
happen in a _real_ election - certainly not to the extend that it happened
in this one.

>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.

The most recent vote was turned into a farce due to Joop being able to
decide at polling time exactly what voting method would take place. As
there were two candidates who subscribe to the Joop Prime Directive (the
"JPD") and one who didn't, there was a risk the Joop vote would be split
down the middle, allowing the evil dissenter to scream to the top of the
polls.

The obvious way to make this less likely was to allow people to vote for
more than one candidate. Guess what type of vote Joop decided to run - you
guessed it - "you may vote for as many candidats as you wish". A rigged
poll right from the start.

>>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.

Admit it Joop - you wanted to gag JW, but luckily at that time, there was a
steering committee to rein you in and prevent you from doing so.

At the Santiago ICANN meeting, it appeared (IIRC) that JW was proporting to
be an IDNO member on the Webcast IRC channel. You flew into a blind panic,
and I had to sit you down and explain that it was just a problem with the
system/typo that caused the situation. You were ready to ask Ben to kick
him off the IRC server.

>The list Chair is reponsible for his own actions over
>committees he appoints. There is a big difference between appointed and
>elected committees.

The diffference being that when the appointed committee is going to have
trouble selecting the 2nd best option in order to allow Joop to retain
control of the mailing lists, you spread FUD about one of the committee
members, somehow make the other (JPD-following) member the "lead committe
member - and the chairman at the time (incorrectly) chucks a good keen man
off the committee, making it a one man JPD farce, who strangely enough
selects the 2nd best option.

Even though the remnants of the mailing list committee were supposed to
have re-visited the item by now, it hasn't been done, because Joop's
retained control of the lists and thus doesn't want to change the status
quo.


>The ill-fated first steering committee had reached the end of the term for
>which the voters had given it a mandate.

It was operating very well. As soon as it headed down a path against the
JPD, you kneecapped it, and lost a load of good members from the IDNO in
the process.

>As a result of the coup attempt by a few members of the SC,

It wasn't a coup attempt. Coup attempts usually happen when a dictator goes
past the point of sanity. OK then, maybe it was a coup attempt.

>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.

No, no, no. The _remnants_ of the IDNO, mainly people who agree to the JPD,
voted. Most people with the brain cells to see through your farce, left in
disgust.

>The full truth is in the archives, not in the broad insinuations given here.

Gee. That's sentence is almost as good as Jonathan Cohen's famous "that
speech was a mistatement of facts and just an opinion" rebuttal at ICANN
Santiago.

You've crossed over to the dark side Joop.

>In the meantime, the List Assembly has functioned, by majority rule,

Read: "Remnants of the list assembly"

>frustrating the undemocratic ambitions of "the Gang of FUD" (I didn't coin
>this term) who could not find a majority for a takeover.

No - but you _did_ coin the term "an optical illusion" to describe your
behind the scenes retention of control even though you had appeared to
surrender the reins to the steering committee.

Do you admit to that? A straight yes or no RIGHT NOW please. Don't avoid
this question. ANSWER IT.

>("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.

Read "that's how the remnants of the IDNO function".
>
>>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.

Excuse me? The steering committee wanted to do just that, but you didn't
like the idea of losing total control over the web site, so you delayed
putting the vote up on the polling booth.

>Just do it, instead of spreading FUD on lists like these.

Pot, this it the kettle speaking. What colour am I?

>>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.

Via a rigged voting system. Well done Joop. Absolute control retains and
the JPD is saved once more!

>I will gladly step away when the majority of the members wants that.

Hmmmm. All talk, no action. The steering committee wanted a vote on that.
What happened? Joop destroyed the committee!

>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.

You have become so blinded by your own ambitions that you see that the IDNO
_is_ being run by a dictator.

>It has become clear that ICANN does not want an IDNO that runs as a
>successful on-line democracy.

It's become clear that Joop's personal ambitions to control the direction
of the IDNO have all but made it self-destruct.

>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.

Crap. Worse than that, UTTER CRAP. Remember the term "optical illusion" at
this point.

>Anything else would make it easy fodder for capture.

It has been captured. Step away. Go back to running your business so that
you can feed your family. The IDNO would be better off if you took a 12
month sabatical.

>My own idea's are irrelevant unless I can persuade the majority that they
>are sound.

The majority of members of the severely depleted IDNO discussion list are
Joop minions - exactly how you wanted it all along.

>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.

No, surrender to the excellent group of concerned DN owners who wanted to
see the IDNO blossom. You screwed it.

>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.

It's too late. Total depletion is nearly complete. You're to blame.

>
>
>--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  , founder  of
>the Cyberspace Association,

Yeah, so you keep telling everyone.

>the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
>http://www.idno.org  (or direct:)
>http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/

Exactly. The IDNO doesn't even have it's own web site. It's a redirection
to your personal hobby horse. That was somethng else the Steering Committee
wanted to address, but the vote never happened.


Andrew P. Gardner

Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.


--
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