Re: [atlarge-discuss] Point of Order Re: [atlarge-discuss]Domain Name: icannatlarge.org

[espresso@e-scape.net]

At 07:09 -0700 2002/10/10, Jan Siren wrote:
>>Judyth, may I add my voice to those appealing to you to "stick it out."  
>(I apologize for the inadvertent truncations inflicted by my mail handler.)  
>There is no one here with a more level-headed view of the issues related to 
>Internet governance than you, although there are others offering many good 
>ideas.

Thank you for the support, Jan. I am still here and still hoping, though one of my clients is decidedly annoyed that I was half-asleep during our meeting as well as behind with his manuscript.

>I admit to voting for prospective panelists advocating quite different 
>approaches to the issues, fully cognizant that if my choices were the ones 
>voted in (and most of them were, in fact), that the result would be, to put 
>it mildly, continuous "creative tension."

I am all for "creative tension" -- just not tension without the creative part.
 
>But out of the chaos, there has emerged I think the common desire to >express concisely what we stand for; a public position on certain Internet >governance principles.  A better wordsmith than I should offer up an >example statement for discussion by the membership.

In fact, several approaches to the statement were proposed in the forum or on this list. Weeks later, I am still waiting for some direct discussion of those texts.
 
>Finally, I need to comment in your advocacy of Robert's Rules.  Those 
>rules are a sublimely appropriate means of applying democratic procedures >in a room where all can witness the proceedings simultaneously, and where >there is a *single* chairman to lead the discussion, and (if needed) a 
>parliamentarian to apply the rules objectively.  All opinions get heard >(one at a time), and all offered measures are voted on.  No one is muzzled.  >But a mailing list seems to me a singularly inappropriate venue for >Robert's Rules.  It is "witnessed" asynchronously by the participants, who >may simultaneously offer competing motions and demand seconding and >immediate action.  As we have seen here.

Obviously, a mailing-list-based "meeting" is experientially different from an in-person one but we don't have the latter option now and are unlikely to have it at any point in the future. Even such options as Web-based videoconferencing will not solve that problem unless we do indeed set up a viable organization and somehow find the resources to enable thousands of people to participate simultaneously. To me, that means we need to do what we can with what we've got. at least for now.

Robert's Rules is only one of many handbooks of the kind and I'm certainly open to other options. While not ideal for a mailing list, I suspect it's better than no rules at all and no official means of establishing any, which is what we've got now. Some of the difficulties inherent in asynchronous participation and multiple motions are more perceived than real, I think.

For example, while we seem not to have a means of designating a Chair and a Secretary for this free-for-all assembly, we do have an archive which permits us to determine which motions were proposed and seconded before which others and to recognize (if we so choose, of course) that a correctly-framed, duly seconded motion should be discussed as a matter of priority and a vote called on it either immediately or as part of a multi-question ballot or by some other means.
 
>And to all - I view us as participants here in a novel form of democratic 
>interaction, whose rules we are working out.  As we do so, let each of us 
>bend over backwards to extend to each other the civility that we would were 
>we face-to-face with one another, expressing our differences, but keeping >the common goal in view.

Aye, there's the rub. We members know only the couple of dozen other members who have been posting to the list. The remaining 970+ are complete unknowns and we have no means of knowing what they think except by polling them in *some* fashion. 

If we don't create a procedure whereby we elicit their opinions, there can be no consensus. If we don't put these matters on an official ballot AND also rule out "show of hands" votes on the list, there can be no assent or dissent from a proposal. The Panel has been elected under a somewhat ill-defined mandate and the Chair is the Chair of the Panel, apparently, with no role in setting realistic agendas for the membership's discussions. At that point, there is no means by which anyone, our Panel included, can be authorized to do anything much towards getting this organization off the ground. And it would certainly be easier for us to discuss matters with a "common goal in view" if we had some means of agreeing on what that common goal is!

In short, we're caught in a vicious circle. If we can't establish some set of rules which allows us to choose between the two different types of missions and then refine and vote on the one chosen, or allows us to structure the debate so as to work out a reasonable compromise on which there can be a consensus of the membership, the only avenue which remains open is to continue to debate in a vacuum to no effect, perhaps in the hope that our Panel will eventually present us with a fait accompli and a chance to vote "yes" or "no" on the whole package... which is no kind of democracy in my books.

I would be eternally grateful if somebody could propose a workable process which does not involve some kind of defined procedure and some kind of neutral source by which disputes can be resolved without rancour. Failing that, might I suggest that we at least consider electing a Chair and Secretary for this list and conducting ourselves as if this were a meeting of the members, at least on designated days if not on an ongoing basis? Maybe if we could agree that we are in session on Wednesdays, during which time the backchat should be suspended while we get on with the work...?

Just an idea, from somebody who is rapidly running out of them,

Judyth



##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



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