Re: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT

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

I agree that any process of polling which empowered the membership to define
policy would also need safeguards such as minimum number of voting
participants to validate the poll. I would suggest that an appropriate
minimum would be in the region of the number of members who actually voted
in a panel election.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting the members get polled on dotting every
*i* and crossing every *t*... the panel would be elected to work
intelligently along the defined tramlines set out by a polled membership.

Basically, our previous panel stalled because it could not agree on a
clearly defined mission statement... within the panel there was no agreement
on 'who we were', 'what we were about', and 'where we were going'. This
resulted in inertia.

What is needed is to establish clearly what the membership itself defines as
its mission, its objectives, etc. Total authority must be given to the
membership, and the power to *veto* panel actions which diverge from the
democratic will. Within that authority, the panel can then get on and work
productively as servants, with the polled Membership periodically prodding
them, re-directing them, and if necessary vetoing them.

The previous panel refused to embrace the expressed democratic wishes of the
Membership, as expressed in a polling process which involved more members
than actually voted in panel elections. Various panelists had their own
agendas. From now on, the Membership itself should be empowered to vote and
define.

That's basically all I'm asking for.

The panelists are protectors of the will of the people, and servants of the
will of the people. They are not governors who can 'top down' reject what
the membership defines.

This new balance of power would render the vagaries and disputes of
panelists far less damaging, because in the last resort the membership would
get its way.

We would not have to wait a whole year to elect someone else. Periodically
(each month or two) polling of members would enable the agenda (the clearly
defined agenda) to be kept on track.

The idea that, say, 20 members in a poll could hijack the agenda would of
course be totally unacceptable. Experience to date with Joop's poll suggests
that as many people will vote for important issues as will vote for
panelists... and if they don't, then the vote wouldn't be binding.

Richard H


----- Original Message -----
From: Abel Wisman <abel@able-towers.com>
To: 'Atlarge Discuss List' <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT


> Though I expressed being in favour of a polling committee, albeit under
> the responsibility of the panel, and I can see the urgency to making
> this a part of the statute for this organization, I do wonder what is
> expected of this new panel and in what amount of time, seeing that some
> want only a panel for 3 months.
>
> But that aside your posting comes back to a theme that can make or break
> this organization.
> What you are saying is that "every" decision taken by the new panel
> "can" be overturned by the membership, something I can agree to
> providing that there are enough safeguards to make this impossible for a
> "relative small" group to accomplish.
>
> I am in favour of polling the members, definitely, though we need to
> structure rules for polling and the graduations of polling first, I said
> that in an earlier post. But let's also face one or two facts of life:
> we are electing an 11 member panel, by the looks of the current scores
> on % of votes for #11. we are electing these people for a reason;
> because we believe that such a new panel can organise us and lead us to
> where we want to go. Now I did not emphasize "lead us" perhaps I should
> have, but I do think that a panel with NO function whatsoever can just
> as well not exist.
> I do agree that in most cases the panel will propose to the membership
> to endorse her actions, but certainly the initial election is an action
> of endorsement as well.
>
> Surely you can not be saying that 1 or even 20 members can decide to
> overturn a decision?
> Surely you are not saying that daily official votes should be held to
> confirm every decision the panel makes? The fact gathering and decision
> process alone for "any" decision in that case can be 6 months or more!
>
> I wholeheartedly agree with frequent polling, I wholeheartedly agree
> with the right of the memebership to kick a panel out, even a specific
> member, but all for good reasons and after serious debate and started on
> the grounds that there is a likelyhood of success in overturning the
> decision of kicking out the panel.
>
> Setting minimum numbers of votes makes that a vote should be more then a
> poll, which does not leave ot the option of a official vote after a poll
> gives indication, but minimum numbers should be established in such
> cases.
>
> There is a balance in it all we surely need to find without wrecking the
> organization before it is grown up.
>
> Regards
>
> Abel
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
> > Sent: 28 May 2003 18:20
> > To: Sotiris Sotiropoulos; J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin
> > Cc: Atlarge Discuss List; bruce@barelyadequate.info; Eric Dierker
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT
> >
> >
> > I think the concerns you have been expressing, Sotiris,
> > reflect Joop's call for an electoral commission to oversee
> > further elections. I request that the whole membership is
> > polled shortly after these election results, to verify,
> > endorse, or re-define the outcomes of this election.
> >
> > More importantly, I think this whole election should be
> > analysed as a "proof-of-concept" (!) to see where lessons
> > need to be learned. What would be unacceptable would be to
> > repeat the mistakes we made, and fail to learn from this
> > process. Joop's call for an Electoral Commission now seems
> > such transparent good sense that it should be acted on immediately.
> >
> > As I have said in a separate post, it is imperative that we
> > establish a process (by polling I believe) to place decision
> > making and policy determination in the hands of the
> > membership. We saw last year how panel members pursued their
> > own agendas, regardless of the views expressed by members in polls.
> >
> > >From the very outset we need to establish the constitutional primacy
> > >and
> > superiority of the membership - to define mandates, mission,
> > objectives - and to insist that the panel carries them out.
> > The membership should have the power of veto, and the
> > membership should have the power to call for new elections.
> >
> > We need to establish a process which authorises and empowers
> > the membership.
> >
> > We need to face up to "bottom up" democracy and what it really means.
> >
> > We are not ICANN.
> >
> > We are trying to develop a democratic model for the net
> > governance of the future.
> >
> > So we need an immediate membership review of this election;
> > an electoral commission to safeguard and develop processes
> > for future elections; and a constitution which implements
> > processes that will firmly place authority for
> > decision-making in the hands of the membership, not the panel.
> >
> > Sincerely,
> >
> > Richard H
> >



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