RE: [atlarge-discuss] Chair

["Bruce Young" <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Judyth has pretty much just outlined what I feel is the concensus of the
conversations in this forum since we began self-organizing!

I for one trust the Panel to form committes, drawn from the membership and
answerable to them, to work out the many pressing tasks we need to address
(Bylaws and charter, financial/legal structure, automated systems, outreach,
etc.).  I would also expect that panel members will gravitate to manage the
committes working on the tasks they feel strongest about (as Richard has
already done regarding outreach!).  This is not only normal but preferrable!
Now that we habve elected them, we need to give the panel members the
autonomy to select their Chair and form committees to get the job done!

I also suggest that one of the first committees to be formed once we have
selected a name is a outreach/publicity committee, charged with "getting the
word out!"  The Panel should also appoint a spokesperson to speak for the
organization publically, to the press and other organizations.

Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
Bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.com and Join ICANN At Large!




-----Original Message-----
From: espresso@e-scape.net [mailto:espresso@e-scape.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 07, 2002 12:06 AM
To: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Chair


At 23:25 -0400 2002/08/06, Micheal Sherrill wrote:
>Why not have the Panel select their own spokesperson?

Indeed, in many organizations that is exactly what happens: the membership
elects the directors, and the directors decide amongst themselves how their
work should be divided. In practice, that usually means *somebody* has to
hae the duty of calling meetings and then chairing them, while other
somebodies take the minutes, prepare the financial reports, etc. The person
who chairs meetings of the directors may or may not be the person who
handles media relations, or chairs meetings of the membership, or serves as
liaison with other organizations.

>This is a representative political group.  We have elected
>a certain body to represent us.  We should allow them to use
>their initiative and their resources to determine whom among
>them can best serve to speak for them after consensus (I am
>choosing my words carefully here).

Bless you for doing so! Consensus is the key to this type of organization,
and that should start with the representatives on the Panel working to
develop a consensus first amongst themselves as to who does what and how
they will co-operate as a body, then a second and larger consensus within
the organization as a whole on what its mandate will be. A good Chair is the
person who can best facilitate these processes by keeping things organized
and moving forward, as well as by reminding people of the need for civility,
openmindedness, responsiveness to the membership, transparency, etc.

>Give them a chance.  If it does not work out the way we hoped it
>would then we vote them out the next election.  Or petition them
>out if they become ICANN-like.

Here is where I begin to disagree, I'm afraid. I've seen too many
organizations fall apart in well under a year if directors can't be induced
to work well together or if they work well together but feel they were
elected to make decisions according to their own preferences rather than
ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the organization as
a while and in accordance with the wishes of the voters. (Just look at what
happens to our "democratically-elected representatives" when they form a
majority government!) And petitioning an ICANN-like structure would be all
too much like petitioning ICANN itself -- i.e., pretty useless.

Personally, I've just gone through a harrowing 18 months of wrangling within
another organization whose equivalent panel-members got themselves elected
primarily because they didn't like untidy democracy very much and wanted to
eliminate it as quickly as possible (over my dead body and several others).
Meanwhile, another organization was placed in serious jeopardy because ONE
person on its council thought he should be the only person with access to
information -- including how many members there were, how many had not
renewed their membership, how much money was left of the year's budget,
etc. -- with the result that half the council quit, and this year's
elections and convention will be something of a farce.

In short, a really good obstructionist can foul everything up in about three
months and a committed anti-democrat can turn amicable co-operation into two
opposing camps with a few ill-chosen words. Either way, it can take the
organization years to recover ... if it doesn't just fall apart instead.
THIS organization is not yet strong enough to withstand that kind of
pressure.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, we've been talking about this year's Panel as
the group charged with the task of drafting a Constitution and bylaws for
thi organization with a view to incorporating it as a non-profit fairly
soon.

That drafting process is likely to be exacting work but the results should
be ratified by the membership before they take effect; I think it would be
realistic to say that the ratification process could be done this time next
year as a prelude to the next lot of elections -- the one which, assuming
the Constitution and bylaws are approved, will follow a prescribed procedure
for the notice of elections, call for nominations, candidates' statements,
etc., and will include the definitions of specific positions and their
duties (e.g., President, Secretary, Treasurer, Panel Chair...) and terms of
office. In short, this year's Panel is still "interim" while the next
elections should fall within the rules by which the new non-profit
organization will conduct itself, and should therefore result in clearer
mandates for those elected.

In the meantime, of course, our Panel has already been charged with
improving communications with current members, recruiting new ones,
enunciating democratic principles by which we would like the Internet to be
governed, etc. We are asking these people to do a LOT of work and I hope we
all realize that work simply can't be done by the Panel alone: this will
work only if the Panel members can draw on the skills and resources of the
rest of the membership.

That means we as a group have a strong interest in coming up with a
consensus of our own about what needs to be done in what order and by whom.
I blush to admit I haven't been to the site to register yet (will try to do
it in the morning) but what I'd like to see, first and foremost, is an
attempt to enunciate exactly what we want this new organization to do so
that our Panel can plan how best to go about it.

Regards,

Judyth la pomme
(who really could live without all the ad hominem stuff)

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once
they have exhausted all other alternatives." (Abba Eban)
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
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