Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

awfully sorry, Danny. I did not think you were serious. You published your 
bylaws on icannia.org where you concentrated a lof of good fun. And these 
bylaws are so .."un-at-large".

Danny, recent expeirence still shown that this community is really what it 
is a bucj of "at-large" ICANN escaped prisonneers. You are perfectly 
entitled to take yourself for Spartacus. And you will fit the role.

But, please, do not try to federate us under rules copied from our dominators.

Napoleon tried to transform the Republic in Monarchy, the "sans culottes" 
en "barons d'Empire", the "sergeants" en "rois couronnés" .... he just made 
it as one of the familly (he succeeded to the uncle of his wife and the two 
other uncles succeded to him). You will only lead us to worse than the ALAC 
and make us happy to be freed by Vittorio.
jfc

On 16:14 30/05/03, DannyYounger@cs.com said:

> Richard,
>
> The bylaws that I have proposed are deliberately generic.  They constitute a
> time-proven workable structure that has already well-served the needs of many
> organizations worldwide.  This basic structure is to be found in the 
> bylaws of
> organizations ranging from Library Associations to University Regents to
> groups such as the ACM.
>
> In my view, there is a greater value in pursuing a pragmatic approach that
> relies on proven structures rather than adopting the novelty-of-the-hour 
> which
> offers a substantially higher risk of failure.
>
> The approach that you and some others advocate places the public's elected
> representatives at the mercy and whim of a fickle minority group that 
> seeks to
> dictate via a polling mechanism.  You confuse the illegitimacy of a poll (in
> which only a few active members will participate) with the legitimacy of a
> plenary vote (in which all members necessarily receive a ballot).
>
> It is quite clear that no major organization can thrive if the resolution of
> every issue must await the outcome of a membership-wide vote -- this is why
> most have opted for the efficiencies provided by a "representative" system of
> government.  If a membership, over the course of time, disagrees with the
> decision-making of their elected representatives, they then have the 
> opportunity to
> vote the bums out... thereby providing a sufficient set of checks and 
> balances.
>
> We all know that probably 85%+ of the membership (just like the general
> voting populace worldwide) doesn't participate in governance matters on a 
> daily
> basis -- most will not follow daily legislative events, nor participate on 
> policy
> discussion lists, nor will communicate daily with their elected
> representatives... but they will participate in a regularly scheduled 
> election process
> wherein the will of the populace makes itself known.
>
> The moment that you subject an elected Board of representatives to the
> "direction, instructions, amendments and veto of
> the Membership which shall be expressed through the organisation's Polling
> mechanism", you defeat the value of elected representatives.  You are 
> creating a
> situation wherein the representatives that you have elected are necessarily
> subject to the foibles and dictates of full-time lobbyists (that live on 
> these
> lists) that will use a polling mechanism to attempt to secure whatever might
> be on their own personal agendas.  This is a tyranny of the minority that
> should not be tolerated by any that value the worth of democratic 
> representational
> institutions.
>
> My advice:  Elect your representatives, set up a basic suitable structure
> within which they will operate, and trust them to do their jobs.  They will
> hearken to your polls, but remember that you elected them to exercise 
> their own
> independent best judgement (so they are not to be constrained by such 
> polls).
> Inevitably, you can always vote them out of office if you have issues with 
> their
> performance.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>
>
> ---
> Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 19/05/03

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