[atlarge-discuss] Re: questionnaire

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

I mean a bit more intervention than this, James. I believe that "We, the
People" (ie the Membership) should actively define the agenda, the mission,
the objectives - and that the representatives' role is to see that mission /
objectives is carried out. I also mean that at any stage "We, the People"
are authorised to intervene and "fine-tune" the actions of representatives.
In short, "We, the People" have the authority to intervene or veto or
re-define at any point in time, not just at the end of an electoral cycle.

But yes, I'm talking about a Constitution for the Internet Community, based
on the authority of the people - in complete contrast to those models like
ICANN's which pay lip service to "the people" but in reality use
representation and layers of decision-making to distance authority from the
direct democratic intervention of the People.

If we establish a clearly-defined Constitution, then the Mission, the
Objectives, the Processes become transparent, clearcut, and dynamic.

Hope this helps

Richard

----- Original Message -----
From: Jkhan <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<bruce@barelyadequate.info>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 2:50 PM
Subject: questionnaire


> 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