RE: [atlarge-discuss] Appology and Explanation for Joop

[<bruce@barelyadequate.info>]

Richard Henderson wrote:

| When it comes to 'The Rule of Law', where in this
| organisation is the source of that 'law'?

By definition, law isn't people, it is codefied rules, such as the US
Constitution, federal and state laws, etc. in the US.  The idea is that
these laws are binding on all citizens.  Like I said before, the few rules
we have codefied are not sufficient, thus the need for bylaws.

| The crisp top-down model with leaders who give out the
| instructions and dispense the Rule of Law feels safer
| and neater and more comfortable, but is less
| purely democratic.

Your confusion probably stems from a misunderstanding of the role of
authority in a constitutional democracy.  Under this model, leaders don't
"dispense the Rule of Law " as you put it, since they have no authority to
create the law, only execute it, i.e. see it carried out.  This is a far cry
from a military organization, which is a top-down driven autocracy, a very
different beast, both functionally and politically.  I'm certianly not
championing the latter!  Rather, we need to have a team at the helm, guiding
the organization by carrying out the rules the membership dictates.

To run this organization effectively, a certian number of responsibilities
need to be assigned to Panel members, and the authority given to them to
carry those responsibilities out, for which we then hold the accountable.
This relationship between authority, responsibility, and accountability is
essential.  It's Management 101 stuff.  Lose any one of the three and it
doesn't work.  That has been our problem: we have been giving Paneel members
responsibility, and the membership has certianly held them responsible!  But
we never gave them any authority to carry their assigned responsibilities
out.  The membership gives up nothing, other than the annoying need to
micromanage the organization!

| My view of the Rule of Law is that it resides with the People
| at all times, and a Polling Mechanism is a potentially powerful
| means of asserting that sovereignty and authority.

I have already posted my reservations about Joop's (or any other!) Web-based
polling system, so I won't repeat them here.  But assuming we get enough
involvement, a Web-based system could certianly be good for regularly
"checking the pulse" of the membership.  But any substantive policy should
be decided by an election of the membership.  I envision monthly polls to
fine tune the proposed policy choices, and quarterly elections to finalize
them.  This would put the organization's "legislative agenda" on a
three-month cycle, which should be more than enough time to work out even
the most gnarly issues, as long as we get lots of member involvement!
Special elections could be held for short-suspense issues.

| least up until the very end) I personally find it reasonable and
| understandable that Joop recognised that his Polling process
| could, in fact,
| be used to express an alternative centre of power... I
| believe the true
| centre of power in this organisation.

I disagree.  Rule of Law dictates that no one is above the law, no matter
who, and no matter how pure their motives.  We have one official Web site:
ICANNATLARGE.ORG.  That is one of the few hard-and-fast rules we *do* have,
it having been designated by an election of the membership.  If Joop wishes
to operate a Web-based system on our behalf, he needs to move it to our
site, redirect thehis .COM site to it, and open the system up to independant
verification.   Joop has not been willing to do this in the past.

Further, no one individual should have the authority to implement any kind
of poll or election of the membership on their own initiative.  I have no
problem with Joop conducting polls.  But baring the will of the membership
otherwise, I have a real problem with the falacious assumption that they
reflect the will of the membership, particularly when the full membership
was not made aware of the pending poll, and only about 20% of our registered
membership participated.  I also have a real problem with *any* person,
other than our duly elected representatives, sending out messages to the
membership claiming to be official comminuications of the organization,
particularly as they apply to an election, and widely diviating from
official messages as to procedures!


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


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