[atlarge-discuss] Re: questionnaire

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

That is correct, and attainable. (I dislike the name Icann being involved in
it, mind you. The Internet and DNS is bigger than Icann, and the issue of
Internet Governance is far wider than Icann's sphere of influence.)

The whole point, though, is to create a constitution which demonstrates
openness and power vested in the people themselves, as a model (in the short
term) for Internet Governance, and  - who knows - as a model for wider
government in the future.

The point is that it is attainable.

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 10:23 PM
Subject: questionnaire


> Just to clarify once again, an Icannatlarge that is "based on the
conception
> that ultimate political authority resides not in the government or in any
> single government official, but rather, in the people."
>
> That sounds splendid, terrific!
>
> James
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> To: "Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>; <bruce@barelyadequate.info>;
> <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 8:23 AM
> Subject: Re: questionnaire
>
>
> > 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