Re: [atlarge-discuss] Appology and Explanation for Joop

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

Bruce

When it comes to 'The Rule of Law', where in this organisation is the source
of that 'law'? Is it the Panel or is it the People? I think in other posts
you have pre-supposed that the Panel 'leads' the People and, once elected,
is the authority until the end of its term. I take a different view.

I see the Panel merely as a delegated group of workers, who must serve and
act on the ongoing instructions of the People.

In contrast, the People are the source of authority, the People are the
law-instigators and law-rulers. The People are the voice of the law. Our
model is more closely akin to a communist model than a capitalist-democratic
model. However, with the help of technology like Joop's Poll, we do not have
to end up like those corruptions of communism where the People still end up
ruled by the Politburo. For Politburo read Panel.

In our nascent organisation, we have the possibility of operating a purer
more democratic model which constantly refers back to the 'commune' or
membership for authority and governance.

This, I would call "bottom up" democracy.

For a person like you, Bruce, who is used to the hierarchical top-down
"order" of the Armed Services (or myself, having worked in security here in
UK), this can be unsettling. The crisp top-down model with leaders who give
out the instructions and dispense the Rule of Law feels safer and neater and
more comfortable, but is less purely democratic.

My view of the Rule of Law is that it resides with the People at all times,
and a Polling Mechanism is a potentially powerful means of asserting that
sovereignty and authority.

I accept that we will benefit from formalising this authority, vested in a
Polling Mechanism, and establishing its place constitutionally, to clearly
place power in the hands of the People not the Panel. I accept that we have
not established that yet.

Nevertheless, in the context of a chaotic disintegration of the Panel (which
had been ignoring the defined wishes of the People on a number of issues, at
least up until the very end) I personally find it reasonable and
understandable that Joop recognised that his Polling process could, in fact,
be used to express an alternative centre of power... I believe the true
centre of power in this organisation.

The first Poll, in particular, was extremely successful, gaining a numerical
mandate greater than the mandate for the preceding Panel election. And yet
the Panel largely ignored its findings and attempts were made to marginalise
it. The expressed wishes of the People were marginalised by a rump of a
panel which should have been serving the democratic desires of the
organisation.

But this Poll demonstrated that the wishes of the People could be expressed
in this way, the People could indeed be their own government (agreed, they
would want to delegate a lot of day to day stuff to a worker panel), and
indeed in that first Poll, there was clear support for regular use of the
Poll.

In short, the People were saying that they wanted to run their own affairs,
in a much more proactive way.

Joop has been proactive. He has recognised the power of the Poll to empower
the People. That mechanism has not been formally adopted, but (with
safeguards) it should be. It is too powerful a tool to be cast aside. The
Poll showed that the membership does not want to cast it aside.

Therefore what you have is a mechanism which members actually want to use,
to define our objectives, and safeguard our mission, and ensure that the
worker-panel is kept on target (ie: obedient).

The Rule of Law that you refer to, Bruce, may feel comfortably expressed in
the system of delegated authority that you have in the US (though not
everyone would agree!). It feels neat. It feels simple.

In our organisation, we are in the more turbulent pre-constitution times,
and you must expect 'the people' to struggle a little to protect their
emerging democracy. Rule of Law is less neat, and we wrestle to see the true
wishes of the People enforced. That's what Joop's polling has been about.
Trying to give expression to what people think. You call that informal and I
can understand that. I agree that we need to strengthen its authority by
defining its formal use as we establish the authority of the People in our
constitution, along with clear and transparent safeguards.

But Joop's Poll - particularly the first one - has carried the moral
authority of the will of the membership (albeit incomplete and imperfect).
It's given pretty clear advice and information on how many of our
participating membership think and feel. This authority existed whether the
Panel accepted it or not, because the Will of the People supercedes the
arbitrary agendas of a panel (which at that time had mostly unravelled).

I wholeheartedly back the continuing use of the Poll. I think Joop is
correct to assert it as an alternative centre of power in this organisation.
It is a centre of power the members have seemed willing to use. Indeed, it
should be *THE* centre of power, or expression of the power, of the People.

In my mind, the Poll continues to be *THE* Rule of Law that you refer to,
Bruce.

Because the People, not the Panel, should decide sovereignly on any issue
they wish to, what is right for our organisation.

Agreed, this has not been neat. Agreed, the evolution is not yet complete.
But we are creating a network-commune, and we are claiming power to the
people, not power to a self-perpetuating ICANN clique, or any clique that
"thinks it knows best". We are creating, and trying to demonstrate a model
which uses technology to involve people democratically, and which insists:

The Internet belongs to the People.

They (we) are the Rule of Law.

regards,

Richard Henderson

----- Original Message -----
From: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
To: At-Large Discussion List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Sent: Saturday, May 31, 2003 5:15 AM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Appology and Explanation for Joop


> With the flurry of accusations, and my responses to same, I feel I may hav
e
> left Joop Teernstra thinking that I suspect him of conspiring in some
manner
> on his own behalf.  So I felt I should pause before jumping back in, and
> clear the air in that regard.
>
> First, I have nothing but the deepest respect for Joop, and have never
> questioned his motives.  He is also one of the brave few who kept the
> conversation alive in the ALSC forum, back when ICANN had written us off
and
> people were dropping out left and right in dispair.  And more than
probably
> any one person, Joop, by starting up ICANNATLARGE.COM, was instrumental in
> building the early foundations of this organization.  And for that we owe
> him a great debt of gratitude.
>
> That said, you may ask how I reconcile the above statement with others I
> made regarding Joop's actions vis-a-vis this election?  Easily, actually.
> Note that I repeatedly took pains to point out that I didn't question his
> motives.  That's because I know that Joop was acting out of the same
concern
> Jefsy, Eric and myself were: he wants to see this organization succeed and
> move forward.  However, this thing we are trying to build is bigger than
any
> one of us, and our battle is too important to our progeny's future to let
> individual feelings get in the way.  This really isn't about me, or Joop,
or
> Jefsey, or any other one person in this organization.
>
> So, then, why speak so strongly against Joop's actions during the
election?
> The fact is that for any democracy to work, all the citizens must believe
> that no one is above the law.  This is called Rule of Law, as opposed to a
> dictator or monarch's Rule by Decree, or the communists' failed Rule of
the
> Proletariat.
>
> Rule of Law has been very hard to implement in this organization because
> technically, as many constantly point out, we still have no real by-laws
> governing this group.  But we do have some precedents, such as the
11-person
> Panel count, and a number of passed Panel Motions.  In the past, the
> membership has treated this combination of precedents and Panel Motions as
> having the force of law, and often railed against the Panel when anyone
> failed to abide by them.  That the membership treats them as law gives
them
> at least a color of law.
>
> I also believe that, in absence of a clear rule otherwise (which, again,
we
> don't have!), a leader doesn't abandon his or her duty to the membership
> until relieved by competent authority.  And the only competent authority
> this group has ever had were its 11 elected Panel members.  Ergo, when it
> was clear that an election needed to be performed, the remaining Panel
> members were the only people with any mandate whatsoever, no matter how
weak
> others may perceive it to be, to conduct an election on the members'
behalf.
>
> I won't dwell on this overlong, having done so at length already, but if
our
> mandate could be considered questionable, Joop's was non-existant.  By
> independently e-mailing the membership, and directing them to an
alternative
> site, he was acting under color of an authority he had no claim to.  And
> those acts undermined the official election rules and confused members,
many
> of whom got *two* messages with conflicting nominating rules!
>
> Let us also examine the ICANNATLARGE.COM site, used to conduct this
action.
> One of the few other real directives we have from the membership was the
> election which designated ICANNATLARGE.ORG as the official name and Web
> presence for this organization.  If anything can be considered to have
force
> of law this fact does, because the members specifically mandated it by
> election.  This action was likely anguishing for Joop, who had
> understandably politicked for ICANNATLARGE.COM, and had put great effort
> into building his site.  But the membership had spoken.  At that point,
> Joop's site was no longer the official site, and he no longer had the
> *legal* right to use it to speak or e-mail the membership on behalf of
this
> organization.  But he continues to do so to this day, none the less.
>
> Rule of Law.  Democracies are built on this premise, and either we all
agree
> to respect the rules of this organization, or we fail.  That is why I've
> been pushing hard for two years to get this group to build them.  And that
> is why I have a problem with anyone, no matter how well-meaning, setting
up
> an alternative process that claims to represent this organization without
> consultation or any legal basis.  It isn't about Joop, it's about Rule of
> Law.
>
>
> Bruce Young
> Portland, Oregon USA
> 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
>


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