Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel] votesabout to be called

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Don't quite agree with all this, Walt (but as you say, many people will have
many different views)...
I respect what you're trying to do (hold people together) but I think it
avoids our democratic goals... "consensus" leads either to inertia, or to
decision-making by delegates rather than "bottom-up"...
Comments interspersed below

----- Original Message -----
From: Walter Schmidt <walts@dorsai.org>
To: DPF <david@farrar.com>
Cc: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<Wg-bylaws@icann-at-large.org>; The AtLarge Panel Eleven -- Bruce (PM) Young
<bruce@barelyadequate.info>; Edmundo (PM) Valenti <emv@southtech.com.ar>;
Hans (PCh) Klein <hans.klein@pubpolicy.gatech.edu>; James (PM) Love
<james.love@cptech.org>; J-F C. (Jefsey) (PM) Morfin
<jefsey@club-internet.fr>; Michael (PM) Geist <mgeist@uottawa.ca>; Satyajit
(PM) Gupta <icheckemail@indiatimes.com>; Vittorio (PM) Bertola
<vb@vitaminic.net>; Vivek (PM) Durai <vivek@vivekdurai.com>; YJ (PM) Park
<yjpark@myepark.com>; Atlarge Discuss List <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [wg-bylaws] Re: [atlarge-panel]
votesabout to be called


> On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, DPF wrote:
>
> > While I am keen to make progress I agree with Richard that the
> > membership should vote on this fundamental issue firstly as it will
> > affect most other things.
> >
> > I think the key decision is whether or not to join ICANN's ALSO
> > through the RALOs or stay totally outside as a pressure group etc.

The point is, you can't "join it" AND "not join it"... so we need to know as
an organisation, is the democratic will "we join it" or "we don't join it"?

> >
>
>    ...I tire of this - I did not bother to streamline the addressees
>
> One last time - trying one last analogy...
>
> Let's say we wanted to politically represent the USA. There is no way in
> heck that we would attempt to do so with just ONE political party.
>
> Now, we are suggesting we will represent all (of the world's) atlarge
> internet users - and in doing so we are trying to PICK ONE POINT OF VIEW
> and we seem to expect that to work.

We may represent many points of view, but if different groups hold opposite
points of view on strategy ("join the RALOs" and "don't join the RALOS"), we
can't ACT on the points of view if we're trying to be all-embracing. So any
democrat would probably say: let the majority view of the membership
prevail.

So: we ASK the membership... we accept their majority view on the action we
should take... we act upon it.

What can be more "bottom-up" and democratic than that?

If we DON'T pick ONE point of view (for fear of alienating the opposing
point of view) then we are stuck in the present inertia, or we just act
without any reference to what the membership wants. Neither of these options
is acceptable.

>
> NO WAY!!!!
>
> As example - there will those of us who believe we should join ICANN's
> ALSO through the RALOs, and there will be those of us who believe we
> should stay totally outside as a pressure group etc.
>
> WE MUST ACCOMMODATE ALL POINTS OF VIEW, or in reality we will never
> represent the ATLARGE.

OK Walt, so in practical terms, how the heck do you "accommodate all points
of view"?
If we join the RALOs then we ignore the point of view of those who think it
is a disastrous mistake.
If we don't join the RALOs then we ignore the point of view of those who
think we must join up.

These are two separate strategies. Simple question: which strategy would the
membership prefer?


>
> So what do we do - we develop a mission statement that is all inclusive -
> and we've done that already several times over - we write bylaws to be all
> inclusive - and we move forward.


So you develop a mission statement that says we WILL work inside the ICANN
worldview and world structure of an At Large organised under their remit?
And the same mission statement also says we WILL work outside Icann in
opposition to their fake At Large structure, to maintain the independence of
the Internet User community?


>
> And, if YOU feel so strongly about a particular issue that being on our
> pro or con issue committee is not enough - then you can form your own
> organization that is comprised only of the PROs or the CONs.
>
> Do we want to represent the ATLARGE we all its diversities, or do we want
> to represent the atlarge who only think a certain way...

We don't represent all the At Large anyway, because the true At Large is a
multiplicity of organisations. But our organisation needs to decide whether
to try to build an umbrella structure for the multiple groups under the
rules and structures of ICANN, or whether to try to build an umbrella
structure independent of ICANN.

>
> I am of the mind that the more outspoken of us really do not want us to
> represent ALL the ATLARGE - just those of a singular opinion...
>
> And therein is the rub - and that is a pity. Instead of asking what the
> majority of us want - we should be asking who will Chair and join the PROs
> and who will Chair and join the CONs...and thereby provide representation
> of us all.

Hmmm... Hmmm.... Hmmm..... "instead of asking what the majority of us
want..."
IF we are a truly bottom-up, democratic organisation, isn't that EXACTLY
what we should be doing?
But what you seem to be saying is "Leave all the decisions to the people in
committees, to the leadership, to "those who represent us"...

Sorry, but I think that game of delegates, nomcoms, committees, and
non-democratic decision-making is EXACTLY what ICANN does so often.

You say "instead of asking what the majority of us want".

Walt, like you, I feel frustrated that we don't press on forward. But this
can be resolved by letting our own membership determine the future course
and development of this organisation.

The there need not be so much inertia. Then people can choose to stay with
the majority view, or branch off dynamically, or travel on with both the one
and the other (and scores of other orgs that represent user interests... you
don't have to belong to just one org)

But what I cannot accept is that a panel, or a committee, decide and impose
decisions without any evidence that those decisions are the will of the
membership.

A decision about a web announcement ... maybe yes. But a decision about the
fundamental structure of the At Large, and whether it is built up around
ICANN's organisation... no! The membership has to decide.

I say this, even though I suspect my view (of remaining independent and
opposing the ICANN worldwide structuring of the At Large) may be the
minority view. I'm arguing, not to get my own way, but to defend the
democratic basis of our fledgling movement... a "bottom-up" democratic
movement that defies ICANN not only structurally, but ideologically, and
makes its CENTRAL point about democratic representation... by being
democratically representative itself.

Finally... what are we so afraid of, asking all members what they believe...
let's be bold and real and hear it as it is...

And THEN... we know the direction... and we ACT!!!


regards and respect,

Richard H



>
>
>  --- REgards, walts@dorsai.org Walter C. Schmidt, IT CPA  Blue(.) ---
>  - -              Online since CompuServe's MicroNET           ^  ---
>  - -        Microsoft MVP - Windows XP Media Center Edition       - -
>  ---                Associate Expert - Expert Zone                ---
>  - -        http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/        ---
>  - - 52 Ken          http://www.dorsai.org/~walts/         Sun 57 - -
>
>


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