[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Focused Mission Statement (was: point of order)
At 08:54 a.m. 14/10/2002 -0400, Ron Sherwood wrote:
Good morning, Joop:
I did not suggest that we abandon democracy. Your response using that
premise has generated a lot of mail, but does not correctly characterize my
post.
Good morning to you too Ron,
I am sorry if my strong suggestion *not* to abandon democracy gave in any
way the impression that you suggested otherwise.
My plea for a focused mission statement was as much a response to to
Richard's post as it was to yours.
Your recognition that there are two factions within the membership that
have opposing views on the methodology we should adopt to achieve our goals
prompted my response. What I suggested was that we do not have to be so
inflexible that we adopt a single measure that alienates one group of
members in favor of another.
Two sayings spring to mind: "soft doctors make stinking wounds" and "good
fences make good neighbours".
If the two groups part amicably now, each can be the kernel of a new ,
focused and stronger entity in cyberspace. The hundred- or- so lurkers on
this list are certainly not the final figure of those who eventually can be
persuaded to get involved.
We can help each other at many turns, make joint statements, etc. , etc.
But I think each group needs a different structure in order to be effective.
The goal as I understand it, is at-large participation in management of
the Internet as a global resource.
I hope something like that that came across in what I proposed as a
mission statement, except that "management of the Internet" is a bit wider
that what I would see as the area of focus for At Large participation.
Let us assume that the majority of our membership is in favor of our
organization addressing ICANN and Internet governance from a standpoint of
massive external consensus, having sufficient weight to demand meaningful
participation (or by creating a DNS system that bypasses ICANN altogether).
The creation and management of such a group could prove to be extremely
difficult, and the time-line to success extremely long.
I am very reluctant to speculate what the majority of our current
membership is in favour of unless I see a clear and unambiguous poll
prepared under the responsibility of *elected* Polling officers.
No leading polling questions and no ad-hoc appointments of watchdogs that
end up functioning as Polling Officers. (no offence meant to those who did
a job as best they could)
Now suppose that a smaller group of members is in favor of working from
within, or at least working with, ICANN to achieve the same goal. What is
wrong with our organization adopting both modus operandi as a dual strategy?
The problem is that working with ICANN may require compromises. It *will*
require that our organization is focused on a nomination- and election
process of worthy Board members for ICANN (no compromise on that).
It *is likely to* require a different organizational structure and
different Bylaw provisions.
As such a "dual strategy" presents unsurmountable problems.
The membership can vote democratically to approve either method or both.
This is not an abandonment of democracy, it is an inclusive solution rather
than an exclusive one.
I respect this point of view and again I am sorry if anyone thought that I
questioned your commitment to member-democracy.
It is simply my experience that multi-party democracy works better (is more
democratic?) than one-party democracy.
As it is, Richard has already indicated a preference of action:
| The name of our organisation has been decided, but the
| fundamental structure
| of our web presence should be built around www.atlarge.org
|
| Richard
--Joop
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de