[atlarge-discuss] Re: [atlarge-panel] New panel elections?

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

Vittorio

It's always good to read your reasoned and reasonable views, even if I do
not agree with them all. At this juncture I am inflexible about seeing the
wishes of our membership implemented, and I personally accept no option
except recognition of membership opinion (or confirmation of it, followed by
action), and the wishes of our members must be embraced or we deny our true
identity.

I've inserted my comments beneath (to try to persuade you, in accordance
with your own ideals) ... :)

----- Original Message -----
From: Vittorio Bertola <vb@bertola.eu.org>
To: <atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, February 09, 2003 5:51 PM
Subject: [atlarge-panel] New panel elections?


I have not made my mind on this yet.

>From one side, it is evident that a good part of the panel has decided
to neglect their original commitment, or doesn't believe any more in
the organization, or whatever - but they have stopped participating,
up to the point of almost paralyzing the panel's activity.

*****RH: This panel is in a state of inertia, and that has been the
combination of some absentee panelists and also a lack of clarity about what
we are trying to achieve. The view of the membership is that "enough is
enough". We urgently need to surge into action, and I believe we can do
this, if we let membership opinion guide us, use ballots to establish
policy, and set up a new panel which is willing to recognise rule-by-members
and commit to action. What we have now is inertia, and there are strong
indications of what the members want us to do about it*****

It is true that we may replace them with the next in line from last
elections, but we still have to understand whether the new ones would
be more motivated and active, and the more original members you
replace, the weaker (politically) the panel will be.

*****RH: What would we achieve? The next ones in line may be good people but
they have participated infrequently on this list, and one of them has never
done so. Politically, this would be a lame-dog panel, carrying on against
the expressed wishes of many members - a clear majority, if we believe
people's own votes in the recent Poll. The most important thing to me is,
the poll gives a strong indication that our membership simply doesn't want
this option. They see through it. They want a fresh panel and a fresh
start*****

>From the other side, it is also true that if we believe in democracy,
we have to believe in its rules;

*****RH: I agree*****

and that it is very dangerous to let
democratically elected bodies be dismissed by the pressure of a
self-organized mass effort. This poll was conducted unofficially and
without having been approved by the organization, so while I have no
reason to say that its results aren't true, I also have no reason to
say that they can represent a binding direction to the panel.

*****RH: There are no rules against asking the membership for support in
terminating our panel. Yes, the poll was unofficial, but that's easily
resolved : we ask all the members officially. If they agree, and we act on
their wishes (which we should), then we take the appropriate action which
will clearly be supported by the members. This is not breaking rules. This
is upholding democracy. You are also right in saying that the election rules
were never passed by the membership. They were set up in our evolving stage.
Clearly we need to get the next rules sanctioned by the membership and set
up as bylaws. But the important thing is to turn the strong informal
evidence of the Poll into a formal vote, and to listen to the members*****

When the panel was initially elected, it was due to expire next
August, and there are no provisions for new panel elections unless the
panel expires or all the possible panel members, including valid
replacements, resign. So if we want to achieve new elections, formally
we still have to ask to all these people to resign (or not to accept
to enter the panel). But it is also true that our rules are still at a
draft status, and surely incomplete. So, for example, a formal
membership vote might in my opinion remove the whole panel - but such
vote, presently, can only be instated by the panel itself.

*****RH: I agree with this. On the evidence of membership opinion, as far as
we have it, the panel should set up a formal membership vote to dissolve the
Panel and call new elections. In the UK, we have a "top-down" system to
dissolve Parliament and call new elections - she's called The Queen. In
IcannatLarge, we must have a "bottom-up" system to dissolve the Panel and
call new elections - and they're called the members. We're just not used to
voters telling governments when their time is up. But we are trying to do a
new thing here, and showing the world and ICANN that we are a truly
democratic "bottom-up" movement. So, when polls show that the membership
favours new elections, the Panel should formally ask the membership to
confirm that democratic wish. We on the panel are the servants of the
members.*****

Moreover, the panel was also due to accomplish targets that,
presently, seem to be unrealistic, because there's plenty of
disagreement on what they are and how they are to be reached, and
total scarcity of people actively willing to pursue them. So it is
true that a replacement panel would perhaps only delay the problem and
let the organization lose some more months.

*****RH: We simply cannot afford to do this. It's exactly what ICANN wants
and what our membership does NOT want. I repeat: the members want new
elections. If you don't believe me, ask them. *****

So I'll take more views from panelists and members, and then I'll try
to follow one of the two realistic options: either the remaining
members of the panel decide to officially ask the membership about
having new panel elections,

*****RH: I already have, and I call on the panel to confront the opinions of
the members, not evade them*****

 or they do not decide to do so, and in
this case I will start to call replacements in the panel;

*****RH: I will probably resign in this case, because we *know* we can
confirm members' opinions on this, and if we don't, then I regard the panel
as "in revolt" and I can't see myself participate in becoming exactly what
the ICANN Board is : self-contained and regardless of democratic wishes of
ordinary people*****

in this
case, once no more replacements can be found, the vacant places in the
panel may be filled by a new election.

*****RH: No, in this case the panel will limp on until August, in defiance
of what the members want. At least, I can say that if we fail to ask them
formally. And if we don't recognise strong indications from the Poll on the
panel, why are we likely to heed members' opinions on the other matters? And
so we remain in limbo, with no democratic clarification, and the inertia of
divided agendas. Sorry, but you can't get consensus on some of these issues.
It's decision time. Only then can we press forward with our agenda.*****

I may add that, personally, I would like to have a chance to be more
active, ie to call for elections tomorrow, or to start doing things on
my own. But, apart from the fact that my time and strength is not
unlimited, as Chair of an organization which claims to desire to
implement online democracy, I take the word "democracy" seriously.

*****RH: I respect that principle. But we must therefore pay real heed to
the "democracy" of our members' opinions. Frankly, most of our active
members have already spoken. Those who haven't yet, can speak further, both
in informal polling and formal votes. But THAT is taking "democracy"
seriously. Furthermore, assertion of procedure and ignoring expressed
democratic opinion is to let the tail wag the dog. Some of us "pushed our
luck" last week, to break the deadlock. Informal action can sometimes cut
through procedural prevarication. Then it needs to be responded to more
formally. We now understand better what members think - not perfectly, but
better - and we cannot just ignore that unless we choose to be "top down"
and "we know better than them".*****

 The
burdens of democratical policy-making processes, which require lots of
time and effort, may prove excessive for us at this stage, so that we
end up being perfectly legitimate and perfectly inactive.

*****RH: Well look at the record - since the first Panel in April (10 months
ago) we have NO mission statement, NO bylaws, NO substantial procedures...
and yet I cannot call us legitimate if we choose to ignore the opinions of
our members. However, I think we have a breakthrough with the introduction
of the Poll principle to empower the membership. It means, at last, that we
can define. Members can define. And we can adopt procedures to use this
polling approach to drive the organisation forward.*****

 But the
whole effort was designed to be like this, and not just another effort
centered on the skills and activities of just one leader.

*****RH: Agreed. We are evolving a democratic model to *demonstrate* to
ICANN and the world that it is possible to enfranchise thousands of people
and involve them in policy formation and decision-making. Indeed, the effort
should NOT be centred on just one leader. We are "bottom up" and we should
embrace the wishes of the membership and let the membership drive the
organisation. The Panel just do their tasks. The Panel follows their
instructions. But the process should be:
1. Anyone can pose questions. 2. We define the membership wishes through
those questions. 3. The Panel or members try to implement those wishes.
DEFINITION is the name of the game. It's the opposite of ICANN who use
consensual procedure and obfuscation as a tool to push through their own
agenda "top down". With us, it must be different. "Bottom up". Members
defining the policies. Members asking themselves questions. Members setting
targets. We have introduced to the ICANN world: DEMOCRACY... you know, the
thing it expelled from the Board Room.
So...  ...  ...  ...  ...  Please listen to what people have said in the
Poll... Please confirm what they've said if you're honestly unsure... Please
implement what the membership wants...  IT'S TIME TO GET ON BOARD THE
DEMOCRACY TRAIN : destination: The Governance of the Internet. As the ICANN
star declines and governments look for other models, we need to be forging
an alliance of users, with democratic representation at the heart of our
identity. This is a few stations down the track, and there are tunnels to go
through, but it is better than going into the ICANN sidings, and hitting the
buffers at Nom Com Junction*****
--
vb.                  [Vittorio Bertola - vb [at] bertola.eu.org]<---
-------------------> http://bertola.eu.org/ <-----------------------

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