Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] New panel elections?

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 18:31 +0000 2003/02/09, Richard wrote to Vittorio:
>[snip]
>*****RH: I agree with this. On the evidence of membership opinion, as
>far as
>we have it, the panel should set up a formal membership vote to
>dissolve the
>Panel and call new elections. In the UK, we have a "top-down" system to
>dissolve Parliament and call new elections - she's called The Queen. In
>IcannatLarge, we must have a "bottom-up" system to dissolve the Panel
>and
>call new elections - and they're called the members. We're just not
>used to
>voters telling governments when their time is up. But we are trying to
>do a
>new thing here, and showing the world and ICANN that we are a truly
>democratic "bottom-up" movement. So, when polls show that the
>membership
>favours new elections, the Panel should formally ask the membership to
>confirm that democratic wish. We on the panel are the servants of the
>members.*****

Actually, in the U.K., Canada and other parliamentary democracies,
there *is* a more-or-less bottom-up method of dissolving a session
and forcing a new election. It is called a "vote of non-confidence"
and normally occurs when the House of Commons rejects the
government's budget or other major legislation. It's at that point
that the Prime Minister is invited to the Palace to give the
Queen his resignation: she does not herself remove a sitting
government whenever she feels like since she is a constitutional
monarch.

That being said, I don't think an unofficial polling process can
be considered to constitute a vote of non-confidence, and we
don't have a constitution yet so Panelists evidently feel free
to do as much or as little as they like. Vittorio's opinion

>that it is very dangerous to let democratically elected bodies
>be dismissed by the pressure of a self-organized mass effort

is obviously based on a different model of democracy from the
parliamentary variety, where usually it is precisely because
the electorate self-organized and pressures its representatives
to defeat a government bill that said government realizes it
has made a grave error in judgment. Even where, as in Britain
and Canada in recent years, more and more powers to act on their
own have been assumed by the Prime Minister and his "inner
circle", ordinary MPs are often prompted by their constituents
(if not their consciences) to challenge the backroomism and
demand open debate and a vote in the Commons. Some of you
folks may be too young to remember it but there really was a
time when Question Period wasn't just for generating sound-bites
for the government position, and when a government whose agenda
went directly opposite to the one it was elected to implement
would be dismissed.

Frankly, what we have in this group is not really much of a
democracy. It's directly comparable, in fact, to the former
Soviet countries where one could cast a vote for one of two
or three candidates but they all followed the same Party line
over which the voters had no control whatsoever. Our members
voted for Panel members based on what they said they believed
in, and only a handful had any input into what the Panel
mandate would be or how the Panel would conduct its business.
They got burned -- badly -- given that from last August until
now, nothing has been implemented to set groundrules, keep
priorities straight, develop a collective policy on any
issue of Internet governance (except objecting to ICANN's
highhandedness)... and half of those elected quit.

What exactly is "dangerous" about objecting to a Panel composed
in part of people who *lost* the last election, which apparently
can't agree to discuss any given issue to its logical conclusion
and hold a normal Panel vote, and on which the individuals who
actually care to any extent insist that under the current rules
nothing can be done legally ... except what a given individual
chooses to do unilaterally without asking his colleagues???

The members have expressed their dissatisfaction with this state
of affairs and it is clear that something constructive must be
done fairly quickly. The easiest might be an explicit vote on
whether to wait until August or to call a new election sooner
so as to elect Panelists who can commit themselves to an
agenda which will move the group forward towards efficiency
and effectiveness as a voice for Internet users.

It might even make sense to put more than a "now or later"
choice on the ballot -- that is, whatever the election-date,
list the items of business pending within the current Panel's
(unratified) mandate and ask members to
a) write in any important things missing from the list
b) rank all items in order of importance
c) confirm or reject the Panel's current mandate to
   proceed without calling for official input from members.

When new elections are scheduled, I believe it is crucial that
the Panel's mandate be one the membership has approved and
that all who stand for election promise to fulfil it faithfully
or resign promptly so they can be replaced by somebody who
will. I don't have anything against this year's Panelists as
individuals but at least some of them should have resigned
(a good deal sooner than they did) when it became apparent
they didn't have the time or energy to spare for this group.
At this stage of organization, an ineffective Panel is worse
than none at all since, with the latter, we'd have gone to
the membership a lot sooner.

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."
"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