Re: [atlarge-discuss] Vendetta against Sotiris?

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

Thanks for your reasoned response, Martha. It is easy to communicate with
someone who corresponds in a calm and rational manner. My comments are
interspersed below, bracketed by *****s.

----- Original Message -----
From: Martha Gottlieb <megom@gwi.net>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Vendetta against Sotiris?


> > I can see the reasoning behind some people's argument for removing
Sotiris
> > from the panel. A parallel might be the opposition that existed in UK to
the
> > IRA being allowed democratic seats as long as they refused to abandon
their
> > weapons.
> > ---
> > Moreover, Sotiris's style is problematical to some.
> >
> > However, I am really and sincerely concerned that there is a vendetta
going
> > on against him just because he's antagonised some people.
>
> Richard, I would be concerned too, if I believed that.  I think,
> however, that we are trying to insist on civility as a basis for our
> online work.

In most democracies, robust exchanges are normal and healthy. I entirely
agree with you that civility helps, but my original mail expressed concern
that some people were trying to oust Sotiris (democratically elected) from
the panel, and the alleged lack of civility is *not* grounds for overturning
the members' democratic choice.

So I regard 'civility' as a side issue, however much I value it. My argument
was that he was elected and wants to serve and we would undermine our own
democratic process if we rejected the members' choice simply because we
don't like someone's style.
>
> >
> > I am concerned to see this organisation gain a reputation for genuine
> > democratic process, because we need to be able to demonstrate this, in
order
> > to argue the case for democratic representation on the ICANN Board. We
need
> > to demonstrate that it can be done.
>
> Don't you think that democracy flourishes in an atmosphere of mutual
> respect?
>

It does, but you look at any democracy and you will find argument,
conflicting views and style... the mutual respect is an ideal, but it is not
obligatory. A democracy flourishes where representatives and represented are
all free to say what they think and feel. There are many states where this
is not possible.

> >
> > Sotiris didn't accept the election methods and processes, but - short of
> > giving up the fight - he had no real alternative except to go along with
it,
> > protesting all the way.
> >
> > Just because he does not accept the process that took place does not
mean
> > (logically) that either (a) people weren't allowed to vote for him (they
> > did); or (b) that he did not wish to represent them (he does).
> >
> > People want him to represent them. He wants to represent them. If, in
> > between, the process was or was not legitimate, it is nevertheless
entirely
> > consistent that people (who may also question the process) *still* want
him
> > to represent them and that he *still* wants to represent them.
> >
> > Just because he objects to the process does not mean that the democratic
> > will cannot be carried out.
>
> I for one do not think he should be cast off the Panel, or the
> Membership Committee either, of course.  So he railed against the
> election - so what? - enough 'play' existed in the whole process to
> permit his ambivalence.
>

Then I am in agreement with you on this, Martha. People, including both
candidates and electorate, are entitled to challenge processes - that's
entirely acceptable. They may 'ride with the results' without liking the
process along the way, in the greater interests of still representing the
people who wanted you to represent them. Sotiris is being pragmatic by
'staying on board', and that's reasonable - otherwise the people who voted
for him would lose their democratic choice.

>
> >
> > I repeat, it is perfectly clear to me that a vendetta is being waged
against
> > Sotiris by some people who just don't like his style.
>
> Here is where we differ.  I sure don't like his style.  But in the end
> I'll defend his right to expression.  I didn't send him my ID materials
> because of his style and because there was an appropriate alternative.
> I'm trying to make him see that ill humor and meanness are not useful to
> our group's purposes.  We have 'powerful forces arrayed against us'  why
> should we tolerate homegrown unpleasantness.
>
>
> The democratic
> > integrity of the recent election needs to be demonstrated by an enquiry
by
> > an Electoral Commission charged with organising future elections; and
the
> > democratic integrity of the recent election needs to be demonstrated by
> > respecting the wishes of the people who voted for Sotiris.
> >
> > If, as you have argued, the election was fair, then you should accept
the
> > wish of the electorate to have Sotiris on the panel.
> >
> > This, too, is a logical argument which deserves some recognition of
being
> > reasonable.
> >
> > My motive, as I say, is not vendetta or favouritism for Sotiris, but
defence
> > of the democratic process... without which, we can never present a moral
> > case for ICANN, too, to introduce democratic processes and integrity.
> >
> >
> > Yrs,
> >
> > Richard Henderson
> >
>
> I suppose civility is not essential for democracy.  Does that mean that
> we can do without it?
>
> Martha
>
>

Thanks for your response, Martha. I certainly value the sane and civil
members of this organisation. You can 'do business' with them, whether you
agree with them or not. At the same time, I also accept people's right to
use strong language against things they regard as wrong, and I personally
prefer an environment which is lively and sometimes boisterous, to an
environment where people are constrained by niceties and spin. ICANN tries
to operate on the basis of 'niceties' and the appearance of 'reason'... but
they are running scared of the strong and critical, less controllable voice
of grassroots internet users. Sotiris may be hard to 'control' in certain
circumstances, but in the struggle against powerful people, we need
ruthlessly blunt people who will not be marginalised by what Chaucer called
"the smiler with the knife under his cloak".

This is not to endorse unnecessary strife. This is not to deny the value of
magnanimity and generosity. But our organisation must uphold the democratic
principles we want to introduce over the governance of the DNS. We must
demonstrate that democracy can operate online. We all have lessons to learn.

Yrs,
Richard Henderson



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