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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Members' rights

At 01:19 p.m. 22/05/2002 +0300, Eray Ozkural wrote:

>Any sort of constitution must clearly indicate a set of inalienable rights.

Eray, this organization being rather more limited that that of a State, 
would you accept that the rights pertaining to membership in it are also 
more limited?
If you feel that the rights I mentioned are insufficient, please list more 
for discussion.

Also, should  the rights not be balanced with responsibilities/duties?

>I suggest starting with a condition of equality to prevent a group of
>'powerful' individuals from exerting their influence upon others and an
>unconditional freedom of speech. Paid or not.

Equality expresses itself in the principle of one-person-one-vote. That 
should be sufficient.
Going beyond that and identify who is "powerful" and then prevent them from 
exerting influence is fraught with problems and dangers.
It also does not go together with unconditional freedom of speech.

>An at large organization, as opposed to a tyranny, must be open to dissent as
>the system is based on the premise of change.

Agreed. But should the primary focus from day one be on dissent, or on 
majority rule?

>I have no knowledge of an open and democratic society on Internet, 
>therefore I
>conceive that establishing one cannot be through imitation.

Correct. We are taking on something on that is a Major task that can easily 
be thwarted by distraction and disruption.
It has been tried before with a smaller group (the Cyberspace Association, 
or IDNO) for ICANN's DNSO, but  it did not succeed.
The will of the majority was frustrated by a small group of dissenters.

As I spent a great deal of time and energy on that attempt at democracy, 
all I can do is warn for the pitfalls.


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