Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss]Domain Name: icannatlarge.org

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 19:42 +1300 2002/10/08, DPF wrote:
[snip]
>I agree they can not be *infinitely* manipulated.  If there was a
>ranked ballot with ten choices and the top eight choices all became
>unavailable I'd be saying that you shouldn;t just choose between the
>9th and 10th.  
>
>But for a situation like this when there was the chance of merely one
>option being unavailable then no problems.  As it happens this is
>academic anyway as it is now available thanks to Marc who has my
>sincere thanks.

Actually, although our current problem has been resolved thanks to Marc, I don't think it's academic at all. Our Panel is not empowered to simply rejig the vote on an existing ballot, so there would need to be a vote or a general consensus of the membership to drop the first choice and use something else. 

>>As for the idea that it's "mickey mouse" for a democratic 
>>organization to vote more than once ... 
>
>Mickey Mouse to vote more than once on an issue which had already been
>resolved just a few days earlier.  Our members I suspect want to see
>us make progress on issues such as a constitution, determining our
>position wrt ICANN reform, ongoing membership campaign, setting up an
>individual registrants sub-group to petition for gNSO constituency
>etc.

I agree with your intent (to get on with the real work) but not with the assumption that we can dispense with democratic process for the sake of expediency and still claim to be a democratic organization representing  Internet users.

>>Anyway, I'd like to remind us all that there are TWO motions on the 
>>floor at this moment, both properly proposed and seconded, and 
>>democratic procedure requires they be attended to without delay.
>
>Well actually we don't have any such procedures yet because we are yet
>to adopt motion and voting rules for the general membership.  I would
>suggest that one should not assume that merely two members can force a
>vote on any issue they want amongst all 1,000 members.  We could end
>up with 20 votes a day if that was the case.

There might conceivably be a situation where there were a need for a formal ballot with multiple resolutions on which to vote, and I don't see that as a problem.

On the other hand, how are we to develop a constitution, positions on issues, decisions on practicalities, etc., if members have no means of calling for a vote? We have already seen weeks of people talking past one another with no way of resolving anything. I, for one, want nothing to do with a "solution" which calls for this continuing indefinitely, nor with one where a Chair or Panel or Board simply acts without authority.

>Until such time as we adopt a constitution (where I would suggest one
>has a threshold for moving a membership motion such as 2 - 5% signing
>a petition etc) then the panel are the ones who need to use their
>judgement as to how often we call for membership wide votes.

The requirement for a petition by a set percentage of members before a resolution will be considered by the Board of Directors is common but in a  quite different context: i.e., an existing organization where members are able to know who the other members are and have the means of contacting them to ask for signatures of such a petition. We don't have that, nor a Board of Directors to receive the petition and bring it forward at an Annual or Special General Meeting, either. Therefore, the procedure is simply inapplicable at this time.

Meanwhile, it is also important to recognize that the whole point of this organization-that-may-be is that it is a self-organized group of Internet users. Such groups do no and *cannot* organize themselves without mechanisms for determining the will of the membership. This list is as close as we can get to a meeting of the membership, and the sole means by which members can ask for anything! It doesn't include the whole membership yet -- though I hope it will once the nonsense is dealt with and the group proceeds to create a constitution, etc., for itself -- but it is all we members have got. 

It is therefore the only place where we can discuss things and come to some kind of conclusion about what it is worth holding a formal ballot about. My motion called for members to indicate whether or not they wished to vote on the main motion on the floor; it received a seconder and some additional support, as did the main motion itself. Setting aside the specific issue about the domain name, think about it -- we have no structures in place, ni agenda, no timetable and, if we follow your rationale, NO means of establishing those things, without which absolutely nothing useful will get done!

>>Under _Robert's Rules of Order_ and most other handbooks for the orderly conduct of an organization's affairs
>
>These apply to situations where one gathers specifically for the
>purpose of a meeting which will consider motions etc.  For example a
>regular monthly general meeting.  They are not wholly applicable to an
>online organisation which effectively meets 365 days a year.  
>
>Don't get me wrong - I am not against having membership votes as
>needed - in fact in InternetNZ I am responsible for changing the
>constitution so that members can vote on much more stuff by e-mail or
>online ballot.  However one needs a threshold of more than two
>members.  Ours is 20 members or 5%.

In fact, though I don't know the constitution of InternetNZ, it's obvious that it already *has* a constitution and some possibility that at least some members can attend a regular monthly general meeting. We don't have either. We might conceivably have a constitution some day *if and only if* we consider this list the equivalent of a general meeting of the membership. 

>>This discussion list is the equivalent of a meeting of the membership of this group. 
>
>Actually no decisions have been taken on whether the discussion list
>has any powers at all.  I personally support that it does have some
>role beyond merely discussion but this has not been determined.

Our members are scattered around the whole world: there is no way whatsoever that I in Montreal and Norman in Cambodia and Eric in Vietnam and the rest elsewhere can gather in a room together to thrash these things out. We *have* gathered here with the express purpose of organizing a constituency organization for Internet users worldwide. The people who must decide are the members of the existing group, not some external body which would delegate powers to them... and you want to remove the sole means by which the powers of the collective body can be defined! On that model, ALL of us are completely wasting our time because nobody has given us "permission" to found a new organization or told us by what procedures we should do so...

>>I know procedural matters seem terribly boring to some of you 
>>but the reason organizations adopt Rules of Order is because 
>>these actually help to clarify issues, obtain a democratic vote, 
>>and go on to implement its results. 
>
>Agreed.  But what we need to do is firstly have a constitution which
>defines our basic, entrenched  and unbreakable rules.  Then after that
>you develop subordinate rules such as meeting procedure etc.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse here, possibly because you're more accustomed to joining an organization that already exists than to organizing one from the ground up, as we must do. 

There can be *no* "basic, entrenched and unbreakable rules" enshrined in a constitution if we do not create the means for those rules to be formulated, openly debated, and then voted on by the membership. That is, we need sufficient structure to determine the rules by which our "meetings" can go from an unruly chaos to a sober consideration of the mission we wish collectively to take on and the rules which will make it possible to succeed.

Even if you were to assume (and it would be an unjustified assumption) that it is up to the Panel to propose a constitution and set the rules of debate, no constitution worthy of the name is not discussed and amended clause-by-clause until the parties to it are satisfied that it is ready to be ratified by a 2/3 majority of the voting membership. A constitution which does not obtain general assent is no constitution at all! 

Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that we establish rules of procedure now. 

_Robert's_ is one among many handbooks of the kind but it's most popular in English-speaking countries and establishes a set of rules everyone can agree are impartial and not easily distorted by the self-seeking types every organization attracts. Another virtue is that anyone can actually get a copy from a library or bookstore and read for themselves how thousands of non-profit organizations can eliminate most of the inefficiencies of a democracy without in any way harming democratic principles. Personally, I'd be willing to use Hansard or Bourinot or any of the others instead -- it's not which handbook we use that matters but that we do *something* to keep ourselves working towards our stated goal.

An organization worthy of any respect is not composed of a Web site -- any fool can make a site and claim to have lofty goals or speak for thousands.
If this exercise is not to be completely pointless, we need to bring *people* together to make collective decisions, and we need to do this without face-to-face membership meetings every month or "unbreakable rules" formulated by a handful of people which have never received the assent required. 

Democracy is what you get when governance is "by the people, for the people" and you really *can't* get that without allowing the people to vote. Once the principles and ground-rules have been articulated and accepted by members' votes, there will be fewer occasions when the whole membership will be called upon to vote on each situation individually. 

Until then, if the idea of voting doesn't appeal to people, they should say that flat-out, publish their own rules by which no voting is needed, and let me go elsewhere to find a group which *is* interested in democratic representation of Internet users.

Regards,

Judyth


##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de