Re: [atlarge-discuss] polling closed. results now visible

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Firstly, my thanks to Joop for the time and effort involved in this poll.

We aim to be a "bottom up" democratic movement and this poll has provided
some valuable insights about what we - as a membership - see as the scope,
mission and direction of our organisation.

The first lesson, I think, is that it is feasible to steer the organisation
through real democratic involvement of members, and this is an important
signal to send to ICANN, as well as a useful check against "top down"
control by a small elected panel.

Hopefully this Poll will be the precursor of many more, and of a culture of
democracy which might one day be extended to Internet Governance itself. We
want members to be involved? We have a mechanism to support this.

To some of the findings:

Judyth asked members if they wanted the organisation to work to create an
"Umbrella" group for national and regional 'At Large' constituencies
representing Internet users but operating independently of ICANN.

A clear majority favoured this concept, rather than the ICANN RALO approach.

There was a large majority for polling members on all major policy
decisions. This is an important statement, making clear that no panel is
given a free hand to press forward simply on the mandate of an election.
Repeated reference back to the electorate is favoured by the membership.

The same applies to any representatives chosen to represent our organisation
in any capacity. By a margin of more than 4 to 1, members felt that the
selection of such representatives must be made by the full membership and
*not* the panel alone.

A big majority voted for the membership to be given VETO powers on any panel
decision. It's clear that the general feeling is that real control for
decisions needs to rest with members not panellists. I think this is very
informative, and needs to inform us in the way we draft our organisational
mechanisms. We need to write in clear veto mechanisms for the membership.
The issue, of course, will be over what % is needed to initiate a veto vote.
I would suggest we take the number of active poll participants (in this case
171) and that we initiate a veto vote if 5% of this number (9 or round it to
10) request such a vote. We underestimated people's readiness to participate
in quite complex polling, and we should not be afraid of allowing polling on
serious concerns at quite a low threshold. The important thing in these
cases is the outcome, and the ability of the membership to keep control of
its own organisation. We must not raise veto thresholds so high that the
panel can ever bulldoze through contentious policies.

Everything should be done to develop a policy of clear "definition" by the
membership. Fudging and blurring is ICANN's style. Yes, we should try to
build consensus... but it should be a consensus based on informed and
defined opinions, and not ICANN's abuse of "consensus" to steer things
through a compromised middle road, even if that is not democratic will.

In our "bottom up" alternative to ICANN, things should be determined by the
democratic will of the membership, based on voting (exactly what ICANN
detests!).

The VETO vote is an important mechanism which will empower the membership
and keep us "bottom up".

Turning to members setting questions:

The Poll showed 74% in favour of the right of ordinary members to set their
own questions. I feel strongly that this wish of the membership should and
must be respected. It is not acceptable to me to have some kind of committee
that acts as arbiter as to whose questions will be asked, and whose will
not. Minimal constraints should be defined, to prevent profanities and
deliberate abuse of the process. But we should aim to respect the main
principle of ordinary members being allowed to ask their own questions
(without editing).

A massive 92% voted for regular polls. This completely contradicts those who
felt such polls were unwanted. We should not be afraid of "bottom up"
democracy. The real truth, I believe, is that people are *more* likely to
get involved, if they feel they are genuinely consulted, genuinely involved
in decisions, and that our democracy is real. I think that if a panel tries
to go it alone, and fails to poll members, then members are more likely to
disengage.

Anyway, 92% is massive. Regular polls and the use of this kind of polling
mechanism are here to stay. This is clearly something close to the heart of
what we are about : a "bottom up" impulse, a belief in grassroots democracy,
pitted against the autocratic "top down" mechanisms that try to sideline
democracy.

This popular appeal of Polls is so strong that we should be committed to
putting the Polling principle right at the heart of our organisation and how
it evolves and does business.

And so to ICANN!!!!!!!!!

I'm afraid the ICANN RALO initiative has been condemned by the vote of this
organisation. 69% simply don't trust this ICANN plan. Only 16% do trust it.
It is clear that our membership sees through ICANN's sham, which "claimed"
to seek user representation, but in reality this was a "top down" agenda to
control... to control and contain the real At Large, which exists OUTSIDE
Icann, while being committed to make comments on what goes on INSIDE it.
ICANN have been trying to pre-empt the real At Large, and set up RALOs
before the At Large sets up their own independently. In short they have been
trying to ensnare a captive at large, while attempting to "legitimise" the
reform process which chose to EXPEL the elected representatives on the
Board.

We need to act decisively on this issue. By a vote of more than 4 to 1, our
Poll shows a membership which sees through the ICANN intentions.

And by a margin of more than 3 to 1, the members voted in favour of creating
the At Large regional organisations independently and outside of ICANN. Only
1 in 5 wanted the ICANN RALOs.

The implications here are pretty clear.

We should (a) publicly condemn the RALOs
(b) refuse to participate in them
(c) elect representatives who share these views to operate any interface we
want with ICANN - we should vote on these representatives at an early
opportunity
(d) we should take early steps to create the structure of a
worldwide/regional/local umbrella, outside ICANN and its imposed ralos...
and we should make contact with groups like CECUA and start forming a
coalition of user groups to establish a real alternative to ICANN's "top
down" autocracy.

What we have now is the beginning of "DEFINITION".

This means we start to understand the direction our membership wants to
take.

This means we should move from drift to action (action mandated at each step
by the membership).

By a margin of 63% to 42% the membership wants New Elections.

In consequence (and notwithstanding slight concerns that these may hold up
actual objectives a little) I call for the democratic wish to be respected :
we have to learn to live with "bottom up"! Besides, we have the rump of the
original panel. So many people have resigned.

The Panel Elections should take place at the earliest reasonable date.

Richard Henderson



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