Re: [ALSC-Forum] Voting eligibility

[Jeff Williams]

Stephen and all stakeholders of interested parties,

  INteresting comments.  In the final analysis we both wan the same thing,
And At-Large elected board.  Where I guess we part company is that
the stakeholders, ALL OF THEM, must be recognized and be able to
vote for these board members.  The ALSC Final Report draft does
NOT provide for that.  As such, it is unexceptable and illegitimate
on it's face...

Stephen Waters wrote:

> On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 20:18, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >   Quite the contrary Steve.  I was talking about Federal Income Tax.
> > NOT sales tax.  Most sales tax is paid to the state, not the federal
> > Govt.  So as such, that revenue does not, and never has, paid for
> > any of the internet infrastructure.
>
> I think my point was unclear. I meant that all people pay taxes directly
> or indirectly, except those who live in a box out in the tundra (or
> something similar). :-) I of course realized you were speaking of
> federal taxes alone which seemed a bit near-sighted to me... but that's
> not the point. The point is that the labor of individuals necessarily
> supports all tax burdens... it's a tautology, but an important one. It
> expresses that all nodes participate in the system and thus, I believe,
> all nodes deserve say in the system beyond their monetary contribution.*
>
> I don't want to set about a discussion arguing over what
> "infrastructure" means, but it seems clear to me there is some
> distinction between the trunk, branches, and leaves of the Internet
> tree... All of which ought to have some say in the tree.
>
> >   No the US did not have great voting procedures at it's inception.  But
> > this is not 1776 or there abouts, and we should have learned allot
> > about how to create or otherwise provide for great voting
> > procedures by now from those hard earned lessons some 200+
> > years ago...  So it is difficult fro me to find this as a viable or
> > reasonable argument for not doing the right thing.
>
> My argument was for the moral responsibility of doing it right, even if
> the technical capability fell quite a ways short of guaranteeing good
> election results. Jefferson and co. helped ensure the constitutional
> rights of a large number individuals in spite of the real possibility of
> fraud. They didn't chicken out of their responsibilities in the face of
> technical infeasibilities.
>
> If traditional US voter turnouts and results and the actual bills that
> are passed are any indication, a fully At-large elected BoD would most
> likely still lean toward benefitting the largest sections of the tree...
> but with the real caveat of not being elected again if they sacrificed
> the needs of the leaves completely to the short-term interests of the
> trunk and limbs.
>
> Ergo, I want an all At-Large elected BoD.
>
> Cheers,
> -s
>
> * the tautology does not require a zero sum game situation... otherwise
> it would be a rather irrelevant model. :-)

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208