|
Grex > Coop11 > #100: Motion: Grex to be a plaintiff against "Internet Censorship Act" | |
|
| Author |
Message |
janc
|
|
Motion: Grex to be a plaintiff against "Internet Censorship Act"
| 
May 27 22:28 UTC 1999 |
As a member in good standing of Cyberspace Communications, I am
submitting the following motion for a member vote:
Cyberspace Communications should join the plaintiffs in the lawsuit
aimed at overturning Michigan Senate Bill 117.
There is discussion of this bill and lawsuit in item 98.
The board does have the power to decide to participate in this lawsuit,
and it may prove necessary to make a decision faster than our member
referenda mechanism allows. However, our bylaws state that the board
can always be overridden by member vote. I feel that in this decision
the board should have the strongest possible backing from the
membership.
Our bylaws require a lengthy discussion period for referenda, and the
voting period isn't short either. The board may well decide to start
proceedings on this before the member vote is complete. That could
potentially be clumsy, but that's life. I really want this to be a Grex
thing, not a board adventure.
|
| 95 responses total. |
hhsrat
|
|
response 1 of 95:
|
May 28 02:19 UTC 1999 |
If I were a member (my own fault, not enough money) I would second the
motion, but since I'm not a member, I can't.
|
mdw
|
|
response 2 of 95:
|
May 28 02:20 UTC 1999 |
I don't think we need to second these things, but needless to say, I'm
in favour of this.
|
aruba
|
|
response 3 of 95:
|
May 28 02:38 UTC 1999 |
I'll be voting yes.
|
dang
|
|
response 4 of 95:
|
May 28 06:04 UTC 1999 |
Me too, on both this and on faster board action, if it's necessary.
|
mary
|
|
response 5 of 95:
|
May 28 10:29 UTC 1999 |
Yes.
|
scott
|
|
response 6 of 95:
|
May 28 11:01 UTC 1999 |
I am in favor of this.
|
remmers
|
|
response 7 of 95:
|
May 28 11:05 UTC 1999 |
For member votes, the bylaws require a two week discussion period
followed by an online vote taken over a period of ten days. That means
that the earliest a vote can be completed is June 20. On the phone
yesterday, Michael Steinberg indicated to me that the ACLU hopes to set
things in motion on this suit by early June. I don't know if that means
that all plaintiffs have to be on board at that point. I'm sure that
Michael, or J.C. Salyer, can clarify this. In any case, the board may
find it necessary or desirable to move on this before the member vote
can be completed. I wouldn't expect it to happen, but there is also the
possibility that the members might not ratify what the board decides.
Having said all that, I'll state that I support this motion and intend
to vote yes.
|
jcs
|
|
response 8 of 95:
|
May 28 14:32 UTC 1999 |
Thank you to everyone for taking the time to have such a thoughtful
discussion about this matter, it is nice to actually see the great
democratizing power of the Internet in action. As for the timing of
the lawsuit, I am afraid we do need to move rather quickly. Mike and I
had hoped to have a final list of plaintiffs by the end of May so that
we could begin drafting the complaint and file the lawsuit by mid-
June. Because the law is slated to go into effect on August 1, there
is not a lot of time submit briefs, have a hearing, present evidence,
and allow the judge to deliberate and issue an injunction.
We certainly appreciate and admire that Grex is a democracy run by
consensus and do not want to undermine that in any way. However, we
probably need an answer by sometime next week. I do not know if that
would mean having the board approve the lawsuit with us understanding
that Grex may need to pull out if, after two week, the membership
decided not to challenge the law. We would very much like to have Grex
join us in this challenge and are happy to work with you so that Grex
can reach a decision in manner consistent with its bylaws and
principles.
|
mwg
|
|
response 9 of 95:
|
May 28 17:12 UTC 1999 |
I vote yes, go for it.
|
jep
|
|
response 10 of 95:
|
May 28 17:36 UTC 1999 |
I would vote 'no' if this were to come to a vote.
How is it determined whether an action needs to be done via a member
vote?
|
steve
|
|
response 11 of 95:
|
May 28 18:47 UTC 1999 |
I vote yes.
|
steve
|
|
response 12 of 95:
|
May 28 18:49 UTC 1999 |
I also this we need to conviene an emergency board meeting over
this.
We need to act *now*.
Perhaps a telephone polling of the members over the coming weekend
would work? This is a case where our voting system is clearly not
oging to work. We cannot afford to wait on this.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 13 of 95:
|
May 28 18:50 UTC 1999 |
It is determined by asking for the vote. It has been asked for, and
therefore must proceed, if after the waiting period Jan posts the version
to be voted upon. At the same time, the board can act completely
independently, and in this case it appears it must act if action is to be
taken in time. The vote still proceeds. If this motion *fails*, the board
action would not be reversed, as the vote is not to reverse an act of the
board to support entering the suit. If the vote *passes*, it just
corroborates the board action. If the board does not vote to support
entering the suit, but this motion passes, Grex is thereafter committed to
joining in if it still can.
|
dpc
|
|
response 14 of 95:
|
May 28 19:16 UTC 1999 |
I would vote "yes." However, I urge a special Board meeting.
|
jep
|
|
response 15 of 95:
|
May 28 19:22 UTC 1999 |
So you mean that if either the Board or membership votes to support
this, then Grex supports it, but only both voting against it can stop
it? That's a hole in the by-laws.
Act in haste, regret at leisure. I say Grex is being stampeded into
supporting this. I wish we'd avoid it entirely, but I really, really
wish we'd at least avoid having our normal processes bypassed in order
to be counted as part of the "in" crowd.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 16 of 95:
|
May 28 19:36 UTC 1999 |
I will vote yes for us to join this suit.
|
aruba
|
|
response 17 of 95:
|
May 28 21:44 UTC 1999 |
I think that the board could vote to join the suit on the condition that the
decision be confirmed by this member vote. Then we could get involved in the
preliminaries, but if the membership voted the motion down we'd pull out.
Any problem with that, Rane?
|
other
|
|
response 18 of 95:
|
May 28 22:48 UTC 1999 |
I will vote to suport joining this effort.
I would also like to suggest the creation of an emergency membership vote
clause in the bylaws which would allow an issue to be brought before the
membership and voted upon in an accelerated timeline (for pressing,
time-sensitive issues). such a clause would be invoked by a two-thirds vote
of the BoD.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 95:
|
May 28 22:50 UTC 1999 |
Supplement: under such a clause as suggested above, i would recommend that
the full membership be sent a group email at the invocation, informing them
of the topic, the issue under contest, and the reasons for the invocation of
the emergency vote clause.
|
scg
|
|
response 20 of 95:
|
May 28 22:55 UTC 1999 |
I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that the reason to have a board is
so that time sensitive decisions can be made quickly.
|
remmers
|
|
response 21 of 95:
|
May 28 23:43 UTC 1999 |
Not *the* reason, but *a* reason.
Re resp:12 - Since we can pull out at any time, I don't see an absolute
need for a membership poll right now. If there is a membership poll
though, I suggest it be done via email rather than phone. Simpler and
more efficient, and we have a record of the responses.
|
mta
|
|
response 22 of 95:
|
May 29 00:00 UTC 1999 |
I will be voting in favor of joining the suit.
|
janc
|
|
response 23 of 95:
|
May 29 03:13 UTC 1999 |
I know entering this motion complicates procedures. I feel it is the
right thing to do though. If there were a strong feeling that this
motion shouldn't be voted on, then I'd be willing to withdraw it, but it
would have to be awfully strong, or else some other member would just
re-enter it.
Right now I have no doubts in my mind that the board and the members
will both support this. If the board says "yes" and the membership
yanks our chain, we'll have to backpedal fast, but I truly don't expect
that to happen. But if the board really doesn't have membership
support, then we CAN'T pursue this suit, because at any future date, the
members could vote to force us out of the suit. If we don't have member
support, then the sooner we establish that the better.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 24 of 95:
|
May 29 05:08 UTC 1999 |
Yeah, rcurl is trying to pull a fast one, asserting that this motion only says
whether or not grex should join the suit, but doesn't also say to reverse any
board decision made in the interim. While that may be the letter of the
motion, certainly the spirit is that the membership has "veto" power over the
board. Anyone who tries to argue differently is not someone I would want on
the board.
|