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

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Some Simple Facts...



Dear DPF,
Thank you for your response (and for Sotiris' comment) which confirms everything I said.
This does not work? This has not worked? This will not work? Then let do it again ...

There is a problem? let forget about it: let suppose it solved and proceed.
There are questions risen? let never respond them, so may be the fade away?

Let go through your proposition:

At 21:14 05/01/03, DPF wrote:
>2. yet what contingency plan do you propose? The only suggestion
>     by Sotiris is to repeat it ("new election"). Errare humanum est,
>     perseverare diabolicum.

What I would like before that step is for the panel to list what it
believes it can achieve in its year in office
as a panelist I say from experience : none. None with this panel or with any other one. Just because the world, the people, management, network democracy, life, people motivation, etc. etc. do not go that way.

and then specific time frames for each task.
Just a practical explanation why your request is unfeasible. To set-up an agenda would require the panel to agree to vote on such an agenda:

- is it opportune y/n
- is it feasible y/n
- is the agenda in proper order y/n - most would disagree
- is the agenda what we want to achieve y/n - most would have different views

It would probably take three months and most would have left the panel.

So it might be :

31 Jan  Decision on Incorporation
28 Feb  Vote held on fundamental role and purpose
31 Mar  Bylaws adopted by members vote
31 May  Fund raising letters gone out to Registries, Registrars,
Markle etc
30 April        Content Management System for website finalised

This is not rocket science - this is normal good planning and organisation.
No. This is pure dreaming.

We have only people "planing" for others. This is not the way it works. No one wants to be planned by others, and should they accept, they simply get demotivated or feel rejected by petty tyrants immediately calling for a respect of the plan. From experience you may have noted that democratic votes only elect people we reject, IMHO because they believe that because they have been elected they have been entrusted top-down powers and because people enjoy powers even on nothing.

Let be pragmatic: you call for global action and for leadership. This has a name: Fascism. This has never worked.

The way a human network works has a name. It is named subsidiarity. ICANN is Fascist and tries to fake subsidiarity to trap us. We will go nowhere at trying to fight subsidiarity and in calling for a Fascist disguise of a pseudo democracy.

What does mean subsidiarity?

It means that people unite by capillarity and by responsibilities. They closely work together on things they can really offer to others. Things they actually control. This builds cells of action, these cells can unite in many different ways and build a resilient material. A web of concrete things. If one fails, others will replace them or help them restarting.

Subsidiarity is to respect the responsiibilities others have undertaken. This is the true bottom-up.

You certainly have not understood anything at my nz@large. It is not for it to provide support to you, it is for you to outreach to NZ people. And if you do not like NZ, then join barrister@large to outreach and join with other lawyers, or david@large to join, share and uniter with other Davids. It is only that as DPF your are crdible in your circles, of absolute no help outside of them.

It is nice of you to refuse to do any homework, humanwork and to call on others to do their galactical , theoretical work. But there is no motivation for them to carry such a job, and no information necessary to carry it, if you do not do yours. You want the arrow of the cathedral to be built, but you do not want to share in the pillars. Bottom-up is NOT the bottom calling for a pseudo top to do the bottom job. It is for the bottom to build fomr the bottom: the panel is here only to help the bottom initiatives develop and not conflict. To ask for more is utopic. The panel is not here to write a mission statement, but to help propositions to be made, to help a debate, to organize serious votes, to sort out the results.

We will never get 100.000 people if we do not do any outreach and do not proposes prospects something more attractive than never ending disputes on bylaws and charters. What people are interested in are not charters, bylaws, mission statements, votes, etc. they are interested in life, in inter-relating with interesting others, to make felt time to time the power of their union.

Rome has not been built in one day. It is a slow process. But it is a stopped process the way you want it. It is good to have an objective. It is good to have a plan: but the plan is to be for your action (this is named an agenda). A unfeasible plan for all is a dream. Imposing a dream to other is sterilization. All over the world we fight against "globalization" (American/your meaning) for that reason, and we fight for "globalization" (English/French/my meaning), ie for every part of the whole world - local, professional, cultural, etc - to unite when necessary, as much as necessry but no more than necessary. Because this is the only way it works for human beings - angels I do not know, but men and women I know.

My question is simple: what did you do today to make your agenda succeed? Was it fruitfull?

Joop has developed a booth. As long as he develops that booth, proposes it as a booth, makes it something professional and useful, he builds a lot.

When he starts building dreams from that booth, he kills his momentum (the IDNO drama) :
- if he wants to impose it to the panel : too complex. He has to offer it and let people appropriate it. Take your time, do not hurt them. "Slow, slow, we are in hurry" (Talleyrand).
- if he proposes the panel to have an administrator : too complex. Panelists are panelists, not boot operators.
- if he wants to propose it as part of a plan for his agenda (demcoracy, IDN holders, etc..) Too much. The need is for a trusted neutral booth. Not for a booth with an agenda. What we can do with it will be discussed and voted ... through the booth.

This calls for humility. The task is very large. I know it is slow. But it is the way, there is no oher one.

This is not because you are good a one bit that you will be good at another. This is not because you get support for something that you will get supported elsewhere (it is even a reason why you will not: people like to identify people by a role, a task, an accomplishments. They are very suspicious about providential people doing too much, all the more when they are voluntaries, where is the time coming from).

Example: Joop can be identified with the "forum" and the "booth" - it would be better if it was only one of them and proposed a really good professional polling service. I am interested in being identified with the "directory". Sotiris could have been identified with a part of the web site, but IMHO he is better in relating with ICANN. Hans is an ICANN lobbyist, YJ is a MINC supporter. etc. Would you think distributed network in symbiosis with the internet, instead of thinking centralized network like Joe Sims, you could have been identified with "articles".

We need that kind of framework, where somes start doing something and stop calling for "votes" (votes of what? of who? with which legitimacy?). We need people to aggregate with their proximity today leaders and build proximity standing building blocks (proximity can be geographical, cultural, etc... the geographical one only being the lowest cost most efficient one, so the one to focus on).

Then when you start being credible, you can start building. Cell by cell. Organization by organization. The reason why is that I am not interested in building with DPF because he/we can each of us disappear tomorrow. I am interested in building with an organization DPF may lead today, if he has demonstrated that should he go, someone of the same caliber will replace him.

I am interested in helping building relations between nz@large and france@large towards an international structure. I am interested in having your radical@large agreeing on a plan with your socialist@large. I am interested in having forum@large organizing web site password protection with news@large.

I am totally disinterested in global democracy, incorporation without a mission and a strategy, tax relief about money we will never get, secretariat no one will ever give.

Am I dreaming? The only very difficult and slow things we have developped today are a few mailing lists where there is no one. But nevertheless here they are with a few. These are lists I created. I created addresses for each working group. Slow? Slow? yes (actually they are there for a while: please tell me on which are you active? You proposed some "bylaws". I disagrre with them on a global basis, but initiated a debate on their use: where do you defend them? You want global action: the working groups I faught for and installed are global: do you use them?

Am I wrong? show me something which lasts and produces along other lines than subsiadirity and capillarity, anywhere in the governance and in the creation and that you will think positive. You oppose ICANN and fail to see that ICANN is not wrong by strategy, it is wrong by nature. You can change everyone there, you can even make it French, NeoZelandeese or an NGO: it will produce that same result, this is built-in in its centralized network culture and constitution.

Again there is no top leadership but Fascism, only local, proximity leadership at doing things. Leadership is love. I am sorry, only God can love everyone. From time to time there is a charismatic leader reaching national level or transcultural group (Mother Theresa, the Pope). Some tries very hard, like GWB? Only once in history it was mankind level. Unless you think the panel should elect Jesus, let proceed more pragmatically. One step after another.

Why not to support Joop in building his booth:
- he got a name : http://www.pollngbooth.info or http://booth.atlarge
- he is agreeing on making it a serious tool : let join him as one of the polling officer. Everyone will trust you.
- he is agreeing to use it in a way we can click and vote from a mail
- let take advantage from Richard's and Judyth's proposition
- let have a test vote on it (IMHO it would be more efficient to first elect the officers as a demo vote, a marketing move no one can object, and to vote on Richard and then on Judyth's proposition afteward).
- let take advantage from that vote to get experience that Joop and polling officers could then share with others (provided they commit to stay neutral and not to engage in parallel actions).

Let get real, please.
jfc






















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