|
Grex > Coop11 > #100: Motion: Grex to be a plaintiff against "Internet Censorship Act" | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 95 responses total. |
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.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 25 of 95:
|
May 29 06:03 UTC 1999 |
The solution to the problem is for the board to act now to enter the suit,
and then someone enter a motion for members to vote upon to *reverse* the
board action.
I am not suggesting any "fast one's". If the board adopts a motion, and
then later the membership defeats the same motion, that cannot reverse the
board action. It could just mean that the membership is happy that the
board has spoken on the issue, and they don't want to have the same motion
adopted twice. A negative vote does *not* always mean disapproval, but can
simply be used to clear the docket or to say "we don't need to vote
again".
|
steve
|
|
response 26 of 95:
|
May 29 14:04 UTC 1999 |
If the motion doesn't have to come to a resolution before the board acts
on this, then polling members doens't have to occur now. Email is better,
I agree, but I suggest a telephone poll because the one time I needed to
contact 80 people quickly, the phone won out over email.
John (#15), I really really do not see why you are against Grex joining
in on this legal action. Do you support the law? Do you think that no
matter what, Grex should never become involved in this?
I don't see this as being stampeded at all. I see it, very clearly, as
an attempt to regulate speech on the net, and, if succesful, the first of
many such laws controlling the net. Normally I would agree with you, that
Grex should not take a stand on political things. Not gun control, drug
laws, abortion, etc. This is fundementally different to me, in that Grex
runs on the concept of free speech and unfettered access to it. This law
casts a pall over the entire idea of Grex. It would instill a fear that
anything that might be "harmful" to children--or maybe even possibly
"harmful"--should be stricken from the system. That is a dangerous,
un-American system of thought.
Any law which would damage the free-spirited nature of Grex is evil,
and must be fought.
|
scg
|
|
response 27 of 95:
|
May 29 17:55 UTC 1999 |
In general I don't think Grex should be taking political positions, whether
I agree with that position or not. In this case, however, a law has been
passed that may outlaw our orginization. In order to continue to exist,
assuming there would not be other lawsuits that would establish the precident
for us, we need to sue to allow Grex to keep existing. This nice organization
called the ACLU has volunteered to represent us and others affected by the
law for free. Joining in this lawsuit is taking them up on that offer.
There's nothing terribly new about that for us. Grex has hired a lawyer (who
also represented us for free) in the past to help us in a dispute with our
then landlord, so while that never went to trial, it's not the first time we
have threatened legal action.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 28 of 95:
|
May 29 23:57 UTC 1999 |
Surely you have a better reason for wanting Grex to continue to exist
than just because it exists now. How about putting forward some reasoned
arguments for its continued existence? Such as, performing a public service,
and upholding the First Amendment?
|
jshafer
|
|
response 29 of 95:
|
May 30 01:47 UTC 1999 |
I am not a member (but will be again soon) but I definitely would/will
vote yes. (JEP, while I understand and to some extent agree with your
position on the ACLU, I don't see how grex can _not_ take part in this
suit.)
|
dang
|
|
response 30 of 95:
|
May 30 16:27 UTC 1999 |
Rane: If this motion fails, I will personally take it as a membership
disapproval of this particular board action, and personally enter a
motion that the board remove Grex from the case. (That is, of course,
assuming that the board votes to go ahead with it.)
|
gutchess
|
|
response 31 of 95:
|
May 30 18:28 UTC 1999 |
I read the bylaws and do not see sufficient explanation of the
responsibilities of the 'Board Members', actually, "Board of Trustees" as
spelled out in the Articles of Incorporation to determine if the Board has
sufficient authority to commit the organization to paying for a lawsuit
without the members voting. Article 6 paragraph 2 clearly says, "No part <of
Grex> shall be the carrying on of propagating legisltation...", so I do not
see how you would risk alienating your membership by Not having a general
membership vote at the next meeting. The more you email all members about
the issue and how you want their vote and the implications of their vote, such
as thousands of dollars in attorneys fees, the more you are protecting
yourselves, as Board members, from accusations of 'stampeding'. Have the
general membership vote as prescribed in the Bylaws.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 32 of 95:
|
May 30 18:57 UTC 1999 |
It takes too long, because the procedure is laid out in the bylaws to
allow more time for consideration than the time available.
Re #30: why go around the barn? I suggest that Jan just reverse his motion
and have it state that the motion adopted by the board is countermanded
and Grex will not continue with the suit. Then you don't have to take a
negative vote "personally" or another way to mean something that is not
said. You also don't have to have two member votes.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 33 of 95:
|
May 31 14:47 UTC 1999 |
Re #31: Re-read some of the previous items, preferably while conscious.
Grex is contributing its name, some time and the manpower of certain
individuals. The probability that Grex will be liable for "thousands of
dollars in attorneys fees" is virtually zero, and for you to suggest
otherwise is intellectually dishonest. If this needs to be cleared up,
then perhaps the Grex board should consider adding specific language to
any resolutions clearly stating that no money will be allocated for
attorney fees.
|
dpc
|
|
response 34 of 95:
|
May 31 16:57 UTC 1999 |
Here are the relevant sections from Article 3 of our bylaws:
d. The BOD shall hold face-to-face meetings on a regular,
bimonthly basis, and in addition may hold special meetings if
necessary. A quorum consists of five BOD members.
e. The time, place, and agenda of each BOD meeting shall be
publicized one week in advance of the meeting, or as soon
thereafter as feasible. Meetings shall normally be open to
all users of Grex, except that portions of meetings dealing
with sensitive system security or personnel issues may be
held in closed executive session.
The BOD is authorized to hold special meetings. "The time, place
and agenda of each BOD meeting shall be publicized one week in advance
of the meeting, *or as soon thereafter as feasible*." (My emphasis.)
What this apparently means is that the BOD can hold a special meeting
with *less* than one week's notice if there is a good reason.
I think the BOD should hold a special meeting some time this
week, giving the members whatever notice is "feasible", considering
that the ACLU wants our answer some time this week.
FWIW, M-Net's Board is in the midst of voting on an emergency
on-line motion to join the ACLU's suit. I expect the required
unanimous "yes" votes of all seven directors within a day or so.
|
dpc
|
|
response 35 of 95:
|
May 31 18:33 UTC 1999 |
Oh - as far as I can tell from reading the Grex bylaws (Item 2 in this
conference), there is *no* authority for any kind of phone poll of
members at large or the Board. There are only two ways for Grex
to act: By a Board vote, or by a member motion (which has a mandatory
delay of two weeks before voting can begin).
An organization can only act in accord with its bylaws.
Ergo, since the ACLU wants a decision by the end of this coming week,
the *only* was that Grex can act both legally and timely is for the
President to call a special meeting of the Board.
Just one person's opinion...
|
dang
|
|
response 36 of 95:
|
May 31 18:49 UTC 1999 |
re: 32 Yes, that is the most convenient way. However, I'd like to see
this motion voted on in the positive, rather than the negative. I'd
like to see a mandate from the membership, in order to go ahead.
|
scg
|
|
response 37 of 95:
|
May 31 19:52 UTC 1999 |
re 35:
There's nothing in the bylaws saying that the membership couldn't be
polled by phone, as long as that poll wasn't a way of setting policy. If
somebody wanted to do such a poll, turn the results over to the board, and
then have a board vote to enact the outcome of the phone poll, I'm assuming
that would be permissable.
|