[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] [atlarge-panel] let organize the transition (RH - not transition, but majority rule)
Hi Jefsey, my colleague!
Further comments interspersed below:
----- Original Message -----
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@club-internet.fr>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 1:45 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] [atlarge-panel] let organize the transition
> Dear Folks,
> I am sorry that Vittorio is delaying the normal course of democracy in
this
> organization. Also that a poll has bluntly taken so much importance as to
> make some to forget democratic rules.
*****RH: I am NOT sorry we have had a Poll. Our members say they WANT more
and regular Polls. And I DO regard the Poll as important, as the best
indicator we have, to date, of what our members think and feel. On the
question of democratic rules, I respect your concern to protect the process,
I really do... but at the same time I am insistent that we protect the
substance and democratic wishes of our members too... so I am arguing that
we should use the democratic rules and processes we have to ensure that we,
the Panel, conform and submit ourselves to what our members want. We cannot
just IGNORE what our members say and feel. We are not to act "top down"*****
>
> I therefore formally call the Chair and the Panel to order.
>
> 1. a certain number of Panelists have quitted. The rules automatically
> apply, the delay imposed by the Chair to acknowledge the right of the
> people to be represented by the people they elected is actually a coup.
*****RH: No, I disagree with you here, Jefsey. The refusal of the Panel to
conform to the wishes of the membership is the COUP. We have some pretty
strong indications of what our members wish, and the Panel must NOT block
their wishes. The Organisation does not belong to the Panel. It belongs to
the members. If we ignore what they say and wish, THAT is a COUP. You can't
have it both ways, Jefsey. You say the people have a right to be represented
by the people they elected. I agree. But there's no point the people being
represented by a panel, if they're not represented by that panel!*****
> Even if the intents are good. Democracy starts with the respects of rules,
> votes, people and order.
***** Yes, but of course it is also true that those very rules, points of
order, processes etc can be used to block actual democracy, layer the
processes of implementing the will of the people, and generally can be used
to STALL the agenda of the people. That's what's happening here. The people
(members) have expressed an agenda on a number of issues, and they are being
STALLED... no, worse, contradicted... I DO agree in respecting processes,
but I will confront and challenge those people or those agendas that seem to
do ANYTHING to avoid actually simply doing what the people of the
organisation want. Please, in getting real, Jefsey: the people WANT a new
election. There are ways and means of bringing that about. What's missing
appears to be the WILL. If the Panel continues to ignore the democratic
wishes of our membership, it will simply split the organisation, because of
course, people will then simply mobilise to put a mirror organisation in
action, set up their own election and panel, and press on with a new
identity. The rump of the panel left behind will then be left with a smaller
group to pursue their own minority views... maybe that's what has to
happen... if the wishes of the members continues to be resisted and
ignored... I for one am ready to consider simply using the membership
contact list to launch a new election, if the panel continues to act in
defiance of the majority view of our membership. I believe in the members
calling the tune. At the moment, we the panel are ignoring their wishes*****
*****RH: I'm willing to simply move on with those who want to move on too.
It's not the best way forward (perhaps) but it may be inevitable. There is
great scope for a truly bottom up renewed group, purged of ICANN-habitues
who always think 'delegates' and 'top down' and 'removing actual power from
ordinary members' is the way to go.*****
>
> Today, the current elected panel includes :
>
> Vittorio Bertola (Europe)
> Richard Henderson (Europe)
> Youn Jung Park (Asia/Pacific)
> Jefsey Morfin (Europe)
> Bruce Young (North America)
> Edmundo Valenti (Latin America/Caribbean)
> Kimberley J. Heitman (Asia/Pacific)
> Gabriel Pineiro (Latin America/Caribbean)
> Milan Kapetanov (Europe)
> Marc Derriennic (Europe)
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos (North America)
*****RH: Jefsey, this list is inaccurate, I believe. I was not aware that
Hans had resigned. When? URL? I was not aware that Satya had resigned. When?
URL? If you are asserting due process, then we need to clarify these facts.
I'm also sorry we have not received a single contribution from Kimberley
Heitman, Milan Kapetanov or Marc Derriennic since they were *NOT* voted onto
the Panel last summer. That does not inspire me with confidence for your
approach... even though they could be excellent people... but they haven't
chosen to participate in our lists... And anyway, that's not the democratic
point: the democratic point is that the majority view of our membership
appears to be in favour of simply doing away with the whole panel, and
holding new elections. I support that view. *****
>
> Let welcome and thank the five new comers to confirm to this list which
> elected them they accept their election, and let beg Thomas Roessler to
> include their e-mails in the atlarge-panel list.
>
> 2. should some of them do not accept their election, the next in lines are
:
>
> Ted Byfield (North America)
> Eric Dierker (North America)
> David Schutt (North America)
> Todd Glassey (North America)
> James Khan (North America)
> Cordley Coit (North America)
> Bob Crawford (North America)
>
> 3. The reason given by the Chair for delaying is that he hesitates on the
> course to take concerning a new election of the panel, wandering if a
> chance is not to be given to the new blood in the Panel. This is not a
> decision by the Chair but by the legitimate and complete panel.
>
> I therefore present the following motion that I wish other panelists will
> second so the Chair puts it to a quick vote:
>
> "Considering the present status of the Panel there are two options: either
> to proceed with despatch to a new Panel election and benefit from the
> accumulated experience, to develop an open structure to be discussed; or
to
> prepare the April election in fostering a debate based upon the recent
> poll, to permit different possible "parties" or projects to structure
> themselves and to better propose their vision and targets to the voters.
>
> [ ] I wish to proceed to elections immediately, following the same rules
> as last year
*****RH: A new election, yes, but possibly NOT following the same rules with
regard to filling resignations with the next highest votes... maybe for the
first one or two replacements, but not indefinitely until you are creating
as panellists the very people least supported and least wanted.... leave out
"following the same rules" and keep the proposal simple... simply "I wish to
proceed to elections immediately... anyone who doesn't vote for this one is
choosing to go against the wishes of the majority of the membership*****
> [ ] I wish to respect the April date and actively prepare the Panel
election
*****RH: With respect, I don't think it is an April date. I think it is a
July/August date.*****
> [ ] I abstain
> "
>
> As a general comment: "netocracy" is a complex thing we are working out in
> here, probably more than anywhere else, due to our diversity and the
> purpose of our gathering. We need concepts, tools, experience, work and
> dedication. This is really a big and important task for ourselves, for the
> nets, and probably for the world. Let do not spoil it with precipitation,
> misunderstandings or petty feuds.
*****RH: I assure you I am not engaging in petty feuds. I have no ambition
myself in this strange arena, and I actually respect most of the people
involved in this dialogue, even if I disagree with some of what they say or
do. BUT, there is nothing "petty" about insisting that a "bottom up"
democratic organisation should conform to the wishes of its membership.
Indeed, we should actively seek out the views of the members (that was the
purpose of the Poll) and we should build mechanisms to ensure it is the
members who control and define and create the policies of the organisation,
through regular polling, and a Panel that is subordinated to the people it
represents. At present the Panel is NOT subordinated to the people it
represents. That is not a "petty" issue. That is a serious concern, which
should be aired, and can be expressed with integrity and no malice.*****
We may really be doing something which
> will last in History. This sounds odd, but it may be true.
>
> We are the at large members of the internet governance. ICANN is just
> another structural member as are the GAC, the ITU, etc. We de facto
> represent by our interest, competence and dedication all those who share
> through their machines, their domain names, their e-mails, their web sites
> the common ownership of their own interconnections. We have to accept it,
> we have to build on it, we have not to be stopped by the private interests
> of only a few: the interests of everyone must be taken into account.
*****RH: But that is *EXACTLY* my point, Jefsey. You say that we must not be
stopped by the private interests of only a few! But if you ignore the
democratic majority, then you yourself become "the few" who stops that
democratic momentum! You say: "the interests of everyone must be taken
account of" but if you ignore the wishes of the majority, then it is still
the tail wagging the dog; it is still the "many" having their wishes
over-ruled! I realise you are trying to be statesmanlike and showing concern
for minority opinions and diverse interests. I'm not so stupid I can't see
that, and I respect the instinct. However, the minute you go down the road
of abandoning majority decisions, the minute you try to cobble together some
fuzzy 'consensus' approach, then you open the door to the people who
flourish on ambiguity and consensual compromise and blurredness... the
people who want to block a majority view, who want to suppress the actual
clear will of the majority. Sorry, but in a democracy, the minority
sometimes have to accept that the majority will want *their* wishes
respected! Look where consensus, and diverse agendas has got us in this year
: to the land of inertia. What we so badly need is the clarity and
definition which we can achieve if we actively set out to ask the members
what, specifically, they want... if we actively set out to seek the majority
view... if we actively support the mechanisms which will empower the members
themselves to define policy and clarify and define.
DEFINITION and clarity, along with democratic vote, is the enemy of the
ICANN Board and its obfuscation. It's what we should and can pursue as a
guiding principle. Once that clarity comes, so does purpose and direction.
So do results. And I'm sorry, but the Panel should be under the "command" of
the members. That will be a REAL confrontation and indictment of ICANN's
tired outplayed autocracy.*****
>
> This is our job and it will be our pride to obtain it.
*****RH: I genuinely respect your idealism and human values... I don't agree
with your strategy!*****
> jfc
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de