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

["Karl E. Peters" <bridge@darientel.net>]

Dear CA/IDNO and guests,
    I try over and over again to bring myself into peaceful cooperation with Mr.
Teernstra, and every time, and it never takes long, he makes statements that can
not be allowed to go without a measure of truth to balance them.
    Below are the most outrageous of the last batch of statements, followed by
my comments in response.

Joop Teernstra wrote:

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

So there was a mandate, after all? Please define it for the record.

> 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.

    If there are any Steering Committee members besides myself who still bother
to keep up with things here, they would be most shocked to hear that there was
any "coup" among us other than Mr. Teernstra's own illegal participation there
as an un-authorized "guest" for the entire term of office.
    The only disenchantment most of the active members of the SC held was Mr.
Teernstra's and the remainder of the Polling Committee's refusal to grant the
use of the Polling Facility for holding an SC vote on List Moderation policy.
Even IF WE ASSUME the vote was not within the "mandate" of the SC, it was not
the Polling Committee's place to unilaterally make that decision. (I do,
however, challenge anyone to show why it was not proper for the SC to hold an
internal poll on a key issue of the day to get a consensus on whether to propose
it to the membership or not, though!)

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

You must be assuming whoever your target audience is will not take time to read
the archives, as there is no support there for your many "coup" fabrications.

> 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)

Please explain these "undemocratic ambitions" and what was undemocratic about
them so those of us who lived through that time and have read the archives will
understand.  We have no other record but yours to base this on.

> 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.

That is how it should have operated and may actually function if and when you
stop using your extraordinary privileges such as control over the announce list
and membership list to influence people who will never hear any side but yours
before they vote.

> >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.

Here's an invitation worth taking up!!!

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

Is FUD, then, to be defined as history that does not match your version or
viewpoints? I certainly hold a number of those positions.

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

While it may not have been a majority, it is interesting how many votes he got
on that platform, isn't it?

> 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.

Does that include the times you asked Mr. Williams and others to be removed from
the list unilaterally or does it only apply to those that think you are a
liability to the future growth of what you once admirably started?

> 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.

(I'm sure that ICANN is shaking in their boots about us right now!!!)

> 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.

Do you think that a majority of the voting membership are bullies? If not, you
should have no worry under the current system of list administration, should
you?

> 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.

No one is suggesting you or anyone else be "out" of the group, (other than you
at one time!) because that flies in the face of any thought of wide
representation. Many do suggest, however, that you loosen your personal control
over so many of the organs of the group such as the website, membership and
announce lists and apparent domination of the Polling Committee such that you
can make snap decisions on things without consulting other members or having ANY
direction from the acting Chair whatsoever.

    I am certain that this response will be characterized in any number of
negative ways and I write it with this full knowledge, but I challenge any of
these characterizations to point out areas where I have made any apparent effort
to deceive.

Sincerely,
Karl E. Peters

>
>
> --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/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Idno-discuss mailing list
> Idno-discuss@idno.org
> http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss

--
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