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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Bruce and all fellow members,

  Excuse me Bruce, but do you have any legal training or education?
To my knowledge you do not.  Perhaps I am mistaken?  If you don't
perhaps you should first seek and acquire such ASAP.  Much
of your remarks and comments below were sadly incorrect.

bruce@barelyadequate.info wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801



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