Re: [atlarge-discuss] Impersonal processes Re: [Fwd: [atlarge-discuss] WHAT MOSTMEMBERS WANT]

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

Thank you.

This is one mail I am saving for future use. I am interested not only in
democratic participation in DNS governance, but also in the application of
technology to develop democratic process on a wider scale. Judyth, these
comments are coherent and extremely helpful for future reference. I
particularly like the observation that roles (and actions) are defined not
by personalities but by collective needs. Perhaps what is most needed is a
clearly defined and agreed programme of *work* - so that the group becomes
driven by action, work and accomplishment.

In order for that to happen, there has to be definition of the specific work
we want achieved - and I really believe that definition can only be arrived
at by the sanction (and participation) of the broad membership.

If you "leave it to an elected panel" to simply direct affairs, then the
group gets held hostage to the fortunes of vying personalities.

So my hope is that immediately after the election of a new panel, the whole
membership will be clearly polled on the specific objectives we "require and
insist" are carried out - by the panel, by the members, by us all.

As Judyth says, the collective participation in defined tasks to meet
determined needs will give the group momentum.

So I advocate: elections (with a built in accountability to the
membership) --- polling to define needs and objectives --- then the priority
of carrying out those objectives, preferably tied down to agreed time
limits.

Democracy involves talk-talk-talk but it needs to be driven by actual action
towards the goals agreed by the majority. Otherwise it goes nowhere,
achieves nothing, stagnates, turns in upon itself in an endless repetition
of petty criticism.

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: <espresso@e-scape.net>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:35 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Impersonal processes Re: [Fwd: [atlarge-discuss]
WHAT MOSTMEMBERS WANT]


> At 17:52 +1200 2003/04/14, Joop Teernstra wrote in reply to me:
> >>I sometimes wonder whether people in this group will ever
> >>"get it" that what I've been advocating all along is some
> >>form of process whereby possible solutions are discussed,
> >>tested, compared, and eventually voted upon by the group
> >>rather than identify ideas with particular individuals
> >>and judge them according to whether or not one likes the
> >>person they came from.
> >
> >Do you mean a group in which we all call ourselves "anonymous" ?
> >
> >How long do you think it will take before we are again individualized?
>
> Obviously not! but although each individual has his or her own
> identity and ideas, it is not only possible but desirable to
> discuss and compare ideas on *their own* merits and lacks
> rather than simply accept or reject them based on who made
> the suggestion and what one thinks of him or her as a person.
>
> Mussolini "made the trains run on time" but that doesn't
> discredit the idea that a train schedule should be accurate!
> And it certainly doesn't mean everyone who favours accurate
> train schedules is Mussolini.
>
> In practice, every resolution or bill carries the names of
> its proposer and seconder BUT it is also phrased in impersonal
> terms:
>     RESOLVED THAT whereas [blahblahblah]
>                   such-and-such a measure should be taken.
> Then people debate
> - whether all the whereases are true or not
> - whether the proposed measure is necessary or a bad idea
> - whether something needs rewording or another clause
>   should be added...
> and, finally, once all the pros and cons are in the open,
> a vote is held and the resolution passes or dies.
>
> Here in this group, we can see the best example of this kind
> of process in the purely technical discussions where, whatever
> the individuals or their ideologies, the critique is of the
> technical solution proposed, not who proposed it or what
> somebody infers their ideological reasons might be. With
> several people willing to suggest improvements to a program
> and work on any problems, and without the ad hominem arguments,
> one can actually end up with a workable voting mechanism which
> the membership might well accept when they see it is as fair
> and as practical as we can make it.
>
> That's the same democratic modus operandi I've been talking
> about all along. Discussion is open; anyone can critique a
> proposal and suggest changes; if the changes seem like
> improvements, others will agree to them. Meanwhile, the
> discussion is structured --insofar as there is an agreement
> to discuss the subject all the way to a conclusion and
> without bringing personalities into the debate-- and will
> eventually lead to a conclusion which will be adopted or
> rejected based on whether that conclusion seems right to
> the majority.
>
> >Judging and especially trusting idea's by their origin is so human
> >(and
> >generally sensible) that I am astonished that you  actually believe
> >that
> >such prejudice can be overcome.
>
> I'm not saying that human prejudices can necessarily be overcome
> here -- they certainly aren't in any democratic country I know.
> But the whole purpose of "Rules of Order" is to ensure that
> formal discussion (as opposed to kibbitzing or campaigning)
> focuses on the issues rather than mutual insults.
>
> >Also, how can you avoid people (like yourself) trying to score
> >political
> >points in an environment where people are "getting to know" other
> >people in
> >order to see if they can trust and elect them for office?
>
> I think many of us, including myself, have yielded to the
> temptation to respond individually to individual comments.
> This mailing list has not been accustomed to the kind of
> formal discipline that leads to efficient debate and
> decision-making ... which I think is why we've achieved
> so little to date. "Anything goes" mailing lists are fine
> for recreational purposes or adversarial debate, but the only
> lists I know (and I know lots of them) which actually exist
> for a purpose and eventually fulfil that purpose are the
> ones where all parties agree to focus on the tasks at hand
> rather than trying to score one another off or gain power.
>
> Since you've suggested otherwise above, let me repeat what
> I have said many times. It is not, and never has been, my
> desire to run for a position on the Interim Panel. It *is*
> my desire to see this group make the transition from
> infighting and inaction to democratic processes and
> appropriate action -- the details of both of which must
> ultimately decided by the membership as a whole, not just a
> few of the loudest voices.
>
> Online, we "get to know" one another slowly through what
> we write and what positions we espouse. My position has
> always been that if we exist to convince ICANN et al. that
> the Internet needs open, transparent and democratic
> governance which includes all individual Internet users,
> then we must ourselves *demonstrate* the openness,
> transparency, democracy and inclusiveness we want are
> not only possible but can actually work in practice.
>
> I've got my personal "hobby-horses" -- maximum
> accessibility and inclusiveness, the need for an
> agreed-upon agenda and timetable and rules to ensure
> progress towards a mutually-agreed-upon goal -- but I am
> certainly not alone in my desire for progress and democracy,
> and I certainly am willing to go along with any reasonable
> proposal accepted by a majority of the membership.
>
> For what it's worth, I'm still here mainly because this group
> needs periodic reminders that a democratic organization
> *can't* flourish in a climate where the only decisions made
> are made by particular individuals without obtaining the
> consent of the others before proceeding. I believe that,
> if this group is to become the organization its members
> seem to want it to be, we must learn to co-operate with
> one another much more --work and decide together with others,
> set aside purely personal differences when trying to solve
> impersonal problems, make efforts to include the "silent
> majority" rather than assume their silence disenfranchises
> them, etc.
>
> >>The latter approach has been tried for nearly a year and
> >>the results have not been stellar. Can't we finally try
> >>the other, which is normal elsewhere and seems to allow
> >>for democratic decision-making?
> >
> >O.K. One can always try.
> >What "some form of process" do you propose?
>
> For a start, I think the group needs to set some collective
> ground-rules.
>
> Bruce posted a list of questions for inclusion
> with the Call for Nominations (some of them from the recent
> Poll) which would help define some of these things for us:
> number, quorum, and role of the Interim Panel; how the
> Web site should be run; what other elective positions should
> there be; how the group should be represented to external
> bodies, etc., etc. (I'll have some suggestions about these
> questions later in a separate message.)
>
> Joanna had some good ideas during her tenure as our Panel
> Chair, amongst which were:
> - to keep discussions organized and on-track by
> numbering and accurately labelling threads (it's just too
> chaotic when there are dozens of messages covering various
> topics but all have the same subject line)
> - to try to get the Panel members working together as a unit
> Others have tried too, no doubt, but it hasn't been working
> lately and we need it to since no co-operation within the
> Panel means no collective resolutions which can be put to
> a membership vote and no common agenda we can all work on.
> That list isn't exhaustive by any means but those two items
> seem to me to be both crucial and non-controversial.
>
> Something that may be controversial (but in my opinion
> shouldn't be) is the duty of the Panel Chair to exercise
> chairmanship both within the Panel and here in these
> discussions. Chairmanship is *not* unilateral decision-
> making; it is exerting moral authority to keep order in
> debate and to call for a motion to a) put the question or
> b) postpone a decision and move to the next item on the
> agenda, so that endless debate of one issue doesn't lead
> to neglect of all the others.
>
> Mailing lists which have a real topic usually also have
> some rules for their subscribers: some forbid off-topic
> postings while others enforce the use of tags to let
> people know which messages they might want to read. I
> don't see any harm in applying something like that here;
> it would certainly help me if I could distinguish
> between "CHAT" postings, "ELECTORAL", "WEB SITE", "ICANN"
> "BYLAWS", etc. whether we used them with numerical tags or
> not. A "Take flame wars off-list" rule might be nice but
> I'd settle for a "FLAME" tag if people feel the need for
> ad hominem arguments in public to prove they're not being
> censored.
>
> Assuming (as I do) that we do not have a Board of Directors
> and may not want one which makes top-down decisions for us,
> I'd like to see the Interim Panel's mandate include
> specifics like
> " - formulating a procedure whereby its resolutions will
>     be ratified by the membership as required, and one by
>     which members can bring forward a membership resolution
>     to be voted upon by the membership".
> There is no reason why the Constitution/Bylaws process
> can't be started in the open and in a way which allows
> us to approve interim bylaws as needed. By this means,
> we'd have an opportunity to debate, vote on and test
> individual bylaws before we're faced with having to
> say a straight "yes" or "no" to a long and complex
> document.
>
> To be frank, I think one thing we need to look at right now
> is some groundrules for candidates in the upcoming election.
> We have learned by experience that simply posting a
> statement from each candidate is not enough to ensure that
> they will be good, responsible Panel members. If it's made
> clear from the onset that being a Panelist means more
> responsibility than personal power or status, and that not
> fulfilling one's duties means prompt replacement, maybe
> candidates will take their role more seriously. If being
> a candidate means having to respond to voters' questions
> and live up to one's promises as well as one's mandate,
> maybe this group will really become an effective
> organization in the near future.
>
> But I think if we want that to happen, we need to spell things
> out clearly rather than assume that the most popular candidates
> will automatically do what is best for the group or that
> "just do it" without agreed-upon definitions of "it" will
> lead to consensus. We've tried that repeatedly and it's
> left us with fragmentation and ineffectiveness. On the other
> hand, democracies work by ensuring that the system as a whole
> will work whoever happens to be elected because roles are
> not defined by personalities but by collective needs.
>
> I hope this clarifies what I've been talking about. Agree
> or disagree as you see fit, and eventually the majority
> will decide.
>
> 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
>


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