RE: [atlarge-discuss] ELECTION REPORT

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Richard Henderson wrote:

| 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.

I have no problem with the Panel using Joop's Polling Booth as an informal
method of gauging the thinking of the membership.  But I have several
problems with it being used as an authoritative source for creating policy
in this organization:

	-  We have no external moderators to ensure that the polling information
displayed isn't being manipulated.  Note that this is not an indictment of
Joop, only a comment on how easily a Web-based system can be subverted by
the Webmaster if no one is monitoring it independently.  Joop won't be with
us forever, and any process we set up that is intended to officially needs
to be engineered to prevent the possibility of capture.

	-  Joop's polls have typically drawn in only an insignificant percentage of
our membership.  If polls are to be used to drive the creation of policy,
they should be based solely on a process where *every member* is contacted,
appraised of the poll and it's timing (when it starts, how long it's active,
etc.), and provided a link to access the poll.

	-  The polling mechanism needs to include a means to ensure that each
member has only one vote.  The current system, at least as it's currently
implemented, allows for multiple votes.

	-  An alternative e-mail-based method needs to be provided for members who
are limited to e-mail only (we have had several members in the past who
claim that limitation) to participate in the poll.

| From the very outset we need to establish the constitutional
| primacy and superiority of the membership

No argument.  But this implies that the membership needs to stop playing
spectator and start volunteering to help get real work accomplished.  We've
had little of that, and a lot of spectators jeering from the stands!

| The membership should have the power of veto, and the membership
| should have the power to call for new elections.

Again no argument.  But this should be based on a quorum of a certain
percentage of the membership, not just a few disgruntled members who aren't
getting their way.

| So we need an immediate membership review of this election;

Again, why do we need an election of the membership to validate an election
of the membership?  Or is the idea to keep having elections until the
more-radical voices in this forum get the results they want?  The biggest
complaints I've heard about this election center on two issues:

	-  Uncertainties based on members choosing to use the unofficial nominating
process Joop set up (without consultation with or approval of the
membership!), rather than using the reply and send buttons in their e-mail
reader to respond to the messages we sent out!  The confusion this caused
should not be laid on the election process, or on the persons running it, or
even on the confused members, but on Joop, who chose to go his own way.

	-  Complaints that many of the nominees were unknown. Well, folks,
unfortunately for those trying to manipulate the direction of this group,
this happens when over 800 validated members nominate people *they* trust,
and in my opinion this is a good thing.  Does anyone disagree that we need
"new blood" on the Panel, or are the disagreements based on concerns that
they may result in new voices over which certain old ICANNers may have no
influence?!

Neither of these issues, in my opinion, are grounds for invalidating the
election.

| an electoral commission to safeguard and develop processes for future
| elections;

I'm 100% behind this.  We need hard, fast, well-documented election
procedures that are to be followed to the letter.  Nominations, seconds, and
votes submitted outside the confines of that process need to be rejected as
invalid, just as in any other legitimate election.

| and a constitution which implements processes that will firmly
| place authority for decision-making in the hands of the
| membership, not the panel.

Final authority to approve decisions has always rested in the hands of the
membership.  But when you give persons responsibilities you expect them to
carry out, you must also give them the authority to do it.  One must follow
the other or a leader cannot act.  This disconnect -- that we are electing
Panel members to lead us, expecting them to lead, but not giving them the
authority to do so, then condemning the inaction we've forced on them! --
has been at the heart of this organization's ineffectiveness to date, and
has left us floundering and paralyzed as our enemies move forward to
legitimize their puppet organization.

It is easy to say "let the members decide everything."  But how do you
proposed to implement your broad vision?  As they say, "the devil is in the
details."  What are your details?  And how will this organization be able to
quickly respond to day-to-day issues if it needs to go into a month-long
election cycle every time minor decisions need to be made?  And even if we
can come up with the dollars to set up a real-time automated member polling
system with unique user electronic signatures, how many members would be
willing to put in the long hours every month necessary to make the many
informed decisions that would be expected of them?  As in all so-called
"direct democracy" experiments I've experienced in the past, once the
majority of the membership realized how much work direct democracy is, we'd
end up with a small group of radicalized members with more time on their
hands than the rest of us.  And frankly, I fear worse the work product of
*that* group of unelected, unsupervised fringe members than I would that of
a Panel of persons elected because the membership trusted their integrity!

The fact is, when you elect leaders to lead, they should be chosen because
the members trust their integrity to further the group's agenda, not their
own, and those choosing them must be willing to grant these leaders a
certain level of authority to act on our behalf, within the narrow confines
set for them (not *too* narrow or we're back to inaction!).  We always have
the freedom to second guess their decisions after the fact, and remove them
from office if we disagree with their actions.  But as long as we insist on
"micromanagement by the proletariat," we'll continue to wallow around
ineffectively.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



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