[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion



An alternative could be a somewhat more "simple" structure, for which I
will try and find by-laws later today without the need to translate them
into English. 

What I would propose would be a structure as follows (rough outline):

Panel consisting of n-members (currently n=11 but this is open to debate
as you will later see)

Within the panel proposals are made for functions of chair, secretary
and treasurer, if others are needed they to can be proposed. This
proposal is forwarded to the membership who endorse or refuse with the
proposed people/functions. This can be done in a simple poll.

(I do agree upon frequent polling and a certain leading the will by
polling, I do however feel that before we agree to polling a certain
non-biased list of requirements for such a device should be made and all
options then should be measured against those requirements, I re-iterate
my favouring open-source software)

For a term of office I do agree to a 2 term rotation with limitations,
but let's not throw away knowledge and experience in favour of renewals
and "chances" for "others". "others" can run in every election and thus
have a chance to get on to a panel. The problem with limitations to 2
terms are more of continuity then of chances.
If the term of office is 1 year, then the 2 term restriction is still
half the 1 term example of US politics, which was used and it would also
mean that including the elections, the getting in to things and getting
the feel of the task, the experience factor is taken completely out of a
panel. Also by having those yearly elections and 1 year terms this could
by default mean that the entire panel is changed every year, again
something that works against continuity.
I would therefore propose that terms of office are 2 year, with a
rotation of 50 % of the panel after 1 year and so on, which basically
means that 50% of the panel is changed every year, max term in office is
4 years.
To ascertain which members of the coming panel are in for 1 or 2 years
we can either use the number of votes, or lottery whatever is acceptable
for the membership.
This does not intervene with the membership having a right to vote
people out, who do not perform to their liking. Safeguards should be
made that at any given moment the membership backed by sifficient
numbers, can vote for a motion of dismissal for either a single member
of the panel or the entire panel.

A thorough participation using a polling system is acceptable if and
only if safeguards are in place that carry minimum percentages of
participation and minimum percentages of for votes in relative numbers
to the entire membership.
As an example, proposals can be made by 5% of the membership, except for
motions of dismissal which need f.i. 10%. The proposal can be deemed
"binding" to the panel if at least 60% of the votes are in favor and the
percentage of votes supporting a dismissal should at least equal 5O% +1
of the votes.

As I proposed before, the membership has a right to workgroups, on
whatever topic, it is the duty of the panel to facilitate those
workgroups and the duty of the workgroup to appoint a member to relay
between panel and workgroup as well as a "public spokesperson" to relay
with the membership. Proposals from that workgroup can be treated in a
different way the proposals directly from the membership by allowing a
workgroup to propose on topic directly.

A separate polling committee will oversee the polling at all times, at
least one panelmembers is a member of the polling committee maximum 2
panel members can be a member of that polling committee, neither can
chair the committee.

An electoral body (committee) is created which consists only of members
and they can only be a part of that committee if they agree not to run
for office in the year they are in that committee and for at least one
year after they were in that committee.

Panel maillist is open to reading, not to posting, only panel members
can post, repost and comment on the public list is always allowed.

Panel can convey meetings in real time on irc which meetings will be
open to all and while during deliberations only panel members can
"speak" a separate agenda point will always be an open "mike" for
attendants.

-x-x

These are just ideas, that need to be conveyed in "official" language,
which in my opinion is the last thing we should do, after we agree on
content of the by-laws.

I suggest a bylaws workgroup which would be an open workgroup, meaning
that everyone can join in whenever they want.

I am trying to find a "workable" solution between the not so desirable
top-down board structure and the "unworkable" full bottom-up structure.
We all know why we do not want top-down, and would prefer some sort of
bottom-up but what speaks against full bottom-up are a. who takes
responsibility for any decision made by a panel that is legally
responsible.
B. what does election mean in the end if for all decisions no matter how
small the membership has to be asked first
C. the endless stream of polls that might limit participation and allow
for capture.

I appreciate further input.

Regards

Abel


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jkhan [mailto:Jkhan@MetroMgr.com] 
> Sent: 30 May 2003 18:00
> To: Richard Henderson; DannyYounger@cs.com; 
> atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion
> 
> 
> 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
> 



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