Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion

["Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>]

Danny,

I think you have a very good idea.

The problem I have with those-things that hold a Board structure ... is that
they lend themselves to Hegemony.
This is the problem.
Icann has this problem, Icannatlarge has this problem.

I feel the power of the organization should * not * rest in the hands of a
few, it should rest in a body (a constitution) through which the People run
the organization.

Hegemony - is our enemy.

So... how do we overcome it?

James
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion


> Danny - my comments interspersed beneath...
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
> To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Cc: <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:14 PM
> Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion
>
>
> > 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.
>
> ***** Trouble is, we live in a hierarchical top-down society which
generates
> countless clones of ICANN and Worldcom who 'use' time-proven workable
> structures to operate autocratically. The idea of delegating authority to
> "leaders", with the mantra "the people can vote them out at the next
> election" is too often just lip service to democracy... so, for example,
> Tony Blair ordered the Iraq attack with 89% of the public against him here
> in UK, and the "time-proven" argument is : well you can vote against him
at
> the next election. What I'm proposing is to use technology to root our
> Internet Users organisation in real bottom up democracy. This doesn't mean
> you don't delegate loads of stuff to "representatives", but it does mean
> that at any stage the Membership has the right and power to intervene,
when
> its will is being ignored... What objection would you have to that? *****
>
>   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.
>
> ***** On that basis, innovation is never allowed, and we never evolve from
> the apes*****
> >
> > 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.
>
> *****No, no, no... not a minority... the whole point is that the Poll
would
> only operate if it wielded the equivalent voter numbers to those who voted
> in an election *****
>
>   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).
>
> *****Well please note: the number of people who voted in the previous
> election was one fewer than the number of people who voted in the first
> Polling Booth... the Poll can be just as legitimate as an Election Ballot,
> because in both you are asking Members to do the same thing : vote! ...
> furthermore, I agree that all members must necessarily receive the
> invitation to vote in the Poll. *****
>
> >
> > 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
>
> ***** Spin here, Danny ... no-one's saying the Poll would be used for
every
> issue. The Poll would indeed be set up to prioritise (and limit) the
issues
> being polled in any given month. This could be achieved by a permanent
> rolling vote on motions. In reality the Poll might be used hardly at all
or
> quite a lot... the important point is that it would place real ultimate
> authority in the hands of the Members... why, if they voted in legitimate
> numbers, would you oppose that?*****
>
> -- 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.
>
> ***** Well that principle didn't do much good for us in the 12 month
period
> of the last Panel, did it? The whole point of giving the Members direct
> power (apart from the fact that it involves them) is that it means
clearcut
> objectives can be defined and a bum-panel can't just pursue its own
> agenda... the world is full of bum-politicians doing just that.
> retrospective rejection of representatives is too late... the damage is
> done*****
>
> >
> > 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 facts this year show that more people voted in the opening Poll
> than voted in the preceding election (and I bet the number also exceeds
this
> election) and those who voted also said by a big majority that they would
> like to participate in regular polls. That's what our Membership wants, as
> far as our voting membership is concerned. So why go against what the
> Members themselves want for this organisation?*****
> >
> > 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
>
> *****as they should be... they are servants not masters*****
>
>  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.
>
> *****It's the opposite: its been the panelists who have tended to have
their
> own personal agendas. And, as I have already said, there would be built-in
> defences against minority votes - you would insist on the vote being as
> authoritative in size as the election vote (give or take 20%). There's no
> question of a few people hijacking via the Poll - that's a canard - but
> there *is* a serious danger of a few people hijacking via the Panel...
just
> look at the last 12 months!*****
>
> >This is a tyranny of the minority that
> > should not be tolerated by any that value the worth of democratic
> representational
> > institutions.
>
> *****Agreed. But it's not what I'm proposing. The tyranny of a divided
> egotistical panel is far greater. I'm proposing simply letting Members
> determine (or, oversee, if you like) the direction and objectives of their
> own organisation*****
>
> >
> > My advice:  Elect your representatives, set up a basic suitable
structure
> > within which they will operate, and trust them to do their jobs.
>
> *****No, sorry, I don't trust any elected representative to do their jobs;
> and I don't trust the outdated model which - all over the world - tends to
> create a political class that "thinks it knows best", and creates layer
upon
> layer of Boards, Panels and Committees to distance decision-making from
the
> ordinary people they "represent". I trust them much more if they know they
> are constrained to stick to the tramlines and definition established by
> their bosses : the members themselves*****
>
>   They will
> > hearken to your polls, but remember that you elected them to exercise
> their own
> > independent best judgement
>
> ***** No, I elect them to carry out the will and wishes of the membership,
> which can be defined by the membership. Clearly there's loads of fine-tune
> small detail to keep the representatives busy *serving* the organisation,
> but they'll do that much better (and stick to it) if they are *told* what
> the agenda and requirements of the members are, and get on and do it!*****
>  (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.
>
> ***** Again, this is the "semblance of democracy" model, but the threat to
> vote out of office can only be implemented retrospectively. This
> organisation has expressed a strong interest in using technology to become
> truly "bottom up" and such an innovation - if carefully implemented - will
> put the fear of God up ICANN far more than us just becoming yet another
> group of activists using, basically, the same patriarchal top-down models
> that have already stifled democracy in so many places. Democracy should
not
> be about voting once every four years and then the 'rulers' just carry on
> ruling. Democracy should be about involvement and participation. In the
act
> of participating, the membership also learns and grows more informed. In
the
> act of participation, the membership genuinely decides what it wants for
its
> own organisation, instead of being hi-jacked by those "who know
> better".*****
>
> regards, and many thanks for your time,
>
> Richard Henderson
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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