Re: [atlarge-discuss] questionnaire

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>
>
> Joop, you must come to grips with the fact that your poll is only one of
> many disaparate voices in this organization.

I believe this has to change. I believe the Poll should become the
authoritative voice of the Membership, and should have constitutional power
to constrain Panelists, define objectives, veto decisions.

The problem with vesting power in an elected panel is that you usually don't
know in advance their positions and views on a range of subjects (many of
which arise later).

It was absolutely clear in the Spring of this year that the panel was
(collectively) ignoring the wishes of the membership on issues of mission
definition and ALAC. In the end I resigned over the panel's defiance of the
membership.

The Poll should no longer be "only one of many disparate voices". It is
needed to be the constitutional mechanism to allow the members to continue
to define policy and curtail panelists *after* an election.

Setting the April Poll aside (it was poorly promoted), Joop's Polls have
gained more votes than were gained in the previous panel election (and
probably in this one too). The Poll can therefore be as authoritative and
representative as an election, providing that the organisation sanctions it
and establishes its constitutional authority.

People have expressed concerns about the "unknown" nature of some candidates
in this election. Well, a constitution where the Membership continued to
have authority to intervene, veto, define agendas etc would certainly
diminish potential dangers.

We are supposed to be embracing "bottom up" democracy, and we should use
technology to demonstrate a model which shows up ICANN's top-down autocracy.

The panel must never again defy the membership, or deliberately obfuscate,
or pursue its own agendas. No offence to Vittorio (who as a person I accept)
but if he'd had his way, we would all be inside ALAC by now... in fact, I'm
not sure we're not! But the membership has opposed that in Polls.

Bruce, you were "left holding the baby" when 10 out of the original 11
panelists resigned! And I can sympathise with your frustration. But you have
to ask, when resignations happened on that scale, was there no problem?

The reality was that the panel was used to create complete inertia, to give
time for ALAC to develop, and to undermine our threat to ICANN's legitimacy.
I posted repeated motions for the panel to respect the members' views
expressed through well-supported Polls. These motions were ignored or
blocked.

In the end, we were achieving nothing, we still had 5 months to run as a
panel, and I chose to switch allegiance to the Poll and the Membership, (a)
because it was becoming shameful to be part of a discredited panel (b) in
the hope of precipitating new elections (which happened).

I take (mild) exception at your statements, Bruce, that I reneged on my
mandate by resigning. I take the view that the Panel reneged on its mandate
by pursuing its own agendas and defying the expressed will of the
membership.

You can understand why, in the light of this history, I am convinced that
the Poll should be given constitutional authority, to ensure that the will
of the membership is never again hijacked.

Far from being "only one of many disparate voices in the organisation",
nothing has been so instrumental in establishing the views and will of the
membership. It's fair to say that this year the Poll has been far more the
voice of this organisation than any panelist.

Now it should be established as "THE voice" of the organisation, with powers
of veto, power to define mission, power to call elections, power to set
timescales.

Think about it : only 1 out of 11 elected panelists remains. The Poll
provides continuity in times of crisis, because unless the Members go away,
the Poll is always there. A big reason why 10 out of 11 panelists resigned
was because the formula was (and remains) wrong. People resigned because for
various reasons the panel was simply not working (it achieved little beyond
choosing a name). By defining the authority of the Poll/Membership, you can
define mission, tasks, timescales. You can get on. The previous panel didn't
get on, because everyone was pursuing their private agendas. Yes,
ultimately, they could be voted out... but that was going to be 12 months
after election. The Poll has to be able to intervene and say: "No! It will
be done this way!"

Joop's Poll was far more than just a marginal voice.

Richard Henderson


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