Re: [atlarge-discuss] Fw: Resignation

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 22:10 +1300 2003/01/09, David Farrar wrote:
>Once we have had the vote on fundamental direction or mission
>statement, then give wg-bylaws say three weeks to come up with a
>consensus set of bylaws, otherwise take the existing five proposed
>sets and move to a members vote on the five proposals to decide which
>is the preferred one.

My reservations about this haven't changed over time. Very few
people who aren't organization-wallahs have the inclination or
knowledge to read five different sets of bylaws and figure out
the implications of each one.

In fact, most people's eyes glaze over before they have finished
reading a single set, and they have no idea what pitfalls lurk in
things like "the Board will appoint at its discretion..." or the
absence of a specification that the Board and any staff must
circulate a resolution proposed by a member in order to determine
whether it has the support of the required 10% or 15% of the
membership. In the absence of means for the membership to do
more than rubber-stamp what the Board has already decided to do,
as is the case where members' contact information is covered by
confidentiality and the Board can prevent a member from asking
all other members for support, the inevitable result --sooner
or later in the organization's life-- is a Board which sees no
need to be accountable to the membership for its actions, and
especially if said Board is also in a position to veto the
candidacy of anyone with a different view.

Just look at ICANN to see how well that works! This is precisely
what we are objecting to in its conduct -- a Board which can
refuse to seat an elected director at the beginnning of its
meeting, which can stonewall about providing a director with
the information which is required in order to fulfil his
duties (and could one of our directors sue, as Karl Auerback
had to, to obtain that access?), and which can decide on its
own to change the structure and rules of the organization
without even asking for ratification by the members. We can
hardly criticize ICANN for such things if we are willing to
even consider doing the same! ...and yet at least two of the
sets of bylaws proposed by individuals here have included
the mechanisms for making that happen, either overtly or by
the omission of necessary checks on the Board's powers.

How many of our 1000+ members will have picked up on that?
How many of them have been given an opportunity to look at
five (or even two) sets of bylaws in parallel and discuss
their relative merits so as to come up with a single set
on which a consensus exists?
Has WG-Bylaws undertaken a clause-by-clause analysis of
even one of the proposals so as to suggest sensible
amendments or amplifications of what it contains?

I would not subscribe to any of the proposals as they stand
but, even if there had been one I could accept "as is", I
would still object to the calling of the vote and would be
compelled to vote against any set of bylaws presented for
a yes/no vote without allowing members to discuss its
implications and suggest amendments first. We have not even
done that within WG-bylaws yet!

On the other hand, if that rubber-stamp approval process
is acceptable to the majority of the members here, it is
hard for me to understand why they would attach any real
importance to gaining minority rubber-stamping privileges
within an ALOC/RALO structure. People who like being part
of unilateral, authoritatian structures seem like a very
unpromising constituency to try to organize into a force
for democratization of ICANN.

My opinion, for what it's worth.

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."
"Un mot suffit aux sages; pour les autres, il en faut plus."
##########################################################



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