[atlarge-discuss] questionnaire

["Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>]

Richard,

> 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).
-snip-
> 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.

Are you talking a doctrine of popular sovereignty?, such as:
"
Popular Sovereignty

"We the People . . . do ordain and establish this Constitution."
These words are contained in the Constitution's Preamble and give expression
to the doctrine of popular sovereignty, or rule by the people. The
Constitution's Framers crafted a governing document, which they submitted
for popular ratification, based on the conception that ultimate political
authority resides not in the government or in any single government
official, but rather, in the people. "We, the People" own our government,
but under our representative democracy, we delegate the day-to-day governing
powers to a body of elected representatives. However, this delegation of
powers in no way impairs or diminishes the people's rights and
responsibilities as the supreme sovereign. The government's legitimacy
remains dependent on the governed, who retain the inalienable right to alter
or abolish their government or amend their Constitution.
"

--

Well then of course, by all means lets try it. That sounds like a great
idea.

James


----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: <bruce@barelyadequate.info>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:32 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] questionnaire


>
> ----- 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
>
>





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