RE: [atlarge-discuss] questionnaire

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Richard Henderson wrote:

| 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.

When the Polling Booth is moved to ICANNATLARGE.ORG, and knowledgeable
watchdogs are appointed to watch from within to avoid capture, then I will
agree.  Until then we cannot put our trust in *any* system over which only
one person has control, no matter how benevolent we consider that person to
be, because their successor may be less so!

Further, a Web-based system disenfranchises members whose online experience
is limited to e-mail only. A parallel e-mail system must also be provided.

Also, every member must be notified by e-mail when a poll is scheduled.
Participation should not require the affirmative act of having to visit and
drill down through a Web site on their part in order to vote.

Work these serious issues out and I'm there.

In any event, the only official means we have for voting right now is via
direct e-mail to the membership.   To stand up an alternative voting system
used to drive policy will require a vote of the membership. You and Jop
can't just declare it official and make it so.

Of course, if you get the membership's approval, then that's entirely
different.


Bruce Young
Portland, Oregon
bruce@barelyadequate.info
http://www.barelyadequate.info
--------------------------------------------
Support democratic control of the Internet!
Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!



| -----Original Message-----
| From: Richard Henderson [mailto:richardhenderson@ntlworld.com]
| Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 3:33 AM
| To: bruce@barelyadequate.info; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
| 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