Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion

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

Danny - my comments interspersed beneath...

----- Original Message -----
From: <DannyYounger@cs.com>
To: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Cc: <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:14 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: Bylaws Discussion


> Richard,
>
> The bylaws that I have proposed are deliberately generic.  They constitute
a
> time-proven workable structure that has already well-served the needs of
many
> organizations worldwide.

***** Trouble is, we live in a hierarchical top-down society which generates
countless clones of ICANN and Worldcom who 'use' time-proven workable
structures to operate autocratically. The idea of delegating authority to
"leaders", with the mantra "the people can vote them out at the next
election" is too often just lip service to democracy... so, for example,
Tony Blair ordered the Iraq attack with 89% of the public against him here
in UK, and the "time-proven" argument is : well you can vote against him at
the next election. What I'm proposing is to use technology to root our
Internet Users organisation in real bottom up democracy. This doesn't mean
you don't delegate loads of stuff to "representatives", but it does mean
that at any stage the Membership has the right and power to intervene, when
its will is being ignored... What objection would you have to that? *****

  This basic structure is to be found in the bylaws of
> organizations ranging from Library Associations to University Regents to
> groups such as the ACM.
>
> In my view, there is a greater value in pursuing a pragmatic approach that
> relies on proven structures rather than adopting the novelty-of-the-hour
which
> offers a substantially higher risk of failure.

***** On that basis, innovation is never allowed, and we never evolve from
the apes*****
>
> The approach that you and some others advocate places the public's elected
> representatives at the mercy and whim of a fickle minority group that
seeks to
> dictate via a polling mechanism.

*****No, no, no... not a minority... the whole point is that the Poll would
only operate if it wielded the equivalent voter numbers to those who voted
in an election *****

  You confuse the illegitimacy of a poll (in
> which only a few active members will participate) with the legitimacy of a
> plenary vote (in which all members necessarily receive a ballot).

*****Well please note: the number of people who voted in the previous
election was one fewer than the number of people who voted in the first
Polling Booth... the Poll can be just as legitimate as an Election Ballot,
because in both you are asking Members to do the same thing : vote! ...
furthermore, I agree that all members must necessarily receive the
invitation to vote in the Poll. *****

>
> It is quite clear that no major organization can thrive if the resolution
of
> every issue must await the outcome of a membership-wide vote

***** Spin here, Danny ... no-one's saying the Poll would be used for every
issue. The Poll would indeed be set up to prioritise (and limit) the issues
being polled in any given month. This could be achieved by a permanent
rolling vote on motions. In reality the Poll might be used hardly at all or
quite a lot... the important point is that it would place real ultimate
authority in the hands of the Members... why, if they voted in legitimate
numbers, would you oppose that?*****

-- this is why
> most have opted for the efficiencies provided by a "representative" system
of
> government.  If a membership, over the course of time, disagrees with the
> decision-making of their elected representatives, they then have the
opportunity to
> vote the bums out... thereby providing a sufficient set of checks and
balances.

***** Well that principle didn't do much good for us in the 12 month period
of the last Panel, did it? The whole point of giving the Members direct
power (apart from the fact that it involves them) is that it means clearcut
objectives can be defined and a bum-panel can't just pursue its own
agenda... the world is full of bum-politicians doing just that.
retrospective rejection of representatives is too late... the damage is
done*****

>
> We all know that probably 85%+ of the membership (just like the general
> voting populace worldwide) doesn't participate in governance matters on a
daily
> basis -- most will not follow daily legislative events, nor participate on
policy
> discussion lists, nor will communicate daily with their elected
> representatives... but they will participate in a regularly scheduled
election process
> wherein the will of the populace makes itself known.

***** The facts this year show that more people voted in the opening Poll
than voted in the preceding election (and I bet the number also exceeds this
election) and those who voted also said by a big majority that they would
like to participate in regular polls. That's what our Membership wants, as
far as our voting membership is concerned. So why go against what the
Members themselves want for this organisation?*****
>
> The moment that you subject an elected Board of representatives to the
> "direction, instructions, amendments and veto of
> the Membership which shall be expressed through the organisation's Polling
> mechanism", you defeat the value of elected representatives.  You are
creating a
> situation wherein the representatives that you have elected are
necessarily
> subject

*****as they should be... they are servants not masters*****

 to the foibles and dictates of full-time lobbyists (that live on these
> lists) that will use a polling mechanism to attempt to secure whatever
might
> be on their own personal agendas.

*****It's the opposite: its been the panelists who have tended to have their
own personal agendas. And, as I have already said, there would be built-in
defences against minority votes - you would insist on the vote being as
authoritative in size as the election vote (give or take 20%). There's no
question of a few people hijacking via the Poll - that's a canard - but
there *is* a serious danger of a few people hijacking via the Panel... just
look at the last 12 months!*****

>This is a tyranny of the minority that
> should not be tolerated by any that value the worth of democratic
representational
> institutions.

*****Agreed. But it's not what I'm proposing. The tyranny of a divided
egotistical panel is far greater. I'm proposing simply letting Members
determine (or, oversee, if you like) the direction and objectives of their
own organisation*****

>
> My advice:  Elect your representatives, set up a basic suitable structure
> within which they will operate, and trust them to do their jobs.

*****No, sorry, I don't trust any elected representative to do their jobs;
and I don't trust the outdated model which - all over the world - tends to
create a political class that "thinks it knows best", and creates layer upon
layer of Boards, Panels and Committees to distance decision-making from the
ordinary people they "represent". I trust them much more if they know they
are constrained to stick to the tramlines and definition established by
their bosses : the members themselves*****

  They will
> hearken to your polls, but remember that you elected them to exercise
their own
> independent best judgement

***** No, I elect them to carry out the will and wishes of the membership,
which can be defined by the membership. Clearly there's loads of fine-tune
small detail to keep the representatives busy *serving* the organisation,
but they'll do that much better (and stick to it) if they are *told* what
the agenda and requirements of the members are, and get on and do it!*****
 (so they are not to be constrained by such polls).
> Inevitably, you can always vote them out of office if you have issues with
their
> performance.

***** Again, this is the "semblance of democracy" model, but the threat to
vote out of office can only be implemented retrospectively. This
organisation has expressed a strong interest in using technology to become
truly "bottom up" and such an innovation - if carefully implemented - will
put the fear of God up ICANN far more than us just becoming yet another
group of activists using, basically, the same patriarchal top-down models
that have already stifled democracy in so many places. Democracy should not
be about voting once every four years and then the 'rulers' just carry on
ruling. Democracy should be about involvement and participation. In the act
of participating, the membership also learns and grows more informed. In the
act of participation, the membership genuinely decides what it wants for its
own organisation, instead of being hi-jacked by those "who know
better".*****

regards, and many thanks for your time,

Richard Henderson


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