Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission

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

What I'm saying Mauro, is that we can use the Polling System to direct /
confirm / edit the actions and decisions of the Panel, in order to guarantee
that Members' views are honoured *between elections* and not just *at the
next election*.

I agree that much law-making can be done effectively by a small and trusted
group of people on behalf of the rest of us.

However, the intelligent use of the Polling System will give the Membership
added safeguards.

We have already seen, in the past year, how elected panelists can pursue
their own agendas, and attempt to lead this organisation in directions which
the Membership did not want.

For example, Vittorio would have gladly led us all into ALAC, but the Poll
carried out in February showed that the membership was deeply mistrustful of
that and opposed it.

You say that it is not possible to apply "direct democracy" to this
organisation.

I disagree.

I believe that technology enables us to give the Membership powers of advice
and intervention, that do not yet exist for members of a nation state.

I believe that we should demonstrate to ICANN and the public, that we are a
genuine democratic movement... a radical democratic movement... with true
bottom-up decision-making.

Our strongest case to ICANN, USG and the media is democracy. ICANN is a
top-down government quango, which has expelled the democratic
representatives of the people from its Board Room.

We should be a model of something different.

The Polling System will give Members powers of intervention on a monthly
basis, and a direct involvement and control of their own organisation.

"Direct Democracy" is honorable and possible.

We should not be scared of it.

yrs,


Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: A/S Mauro D. Ríos <mdrios@adinet.com.uy>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: @Atlarge Lista <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2003 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission


> Richard and @All,
>
> Did you participate in the writing of the last 10 laws of your country?
> Did you participate in the writing of the last 10 internal rules in your
> company? (if you are not boss)
>
> I am sure you didn't participate in the writing, but also these for sure
YES
> you participated or you are entitled the constitutional of vetoing any law
> that the Parliament edits.
>
> It is not possible to apply direct Democracy for practical reasons.
> I don't imagine to the North American town or any other one, everything,
> gathered in the Great Canyon editing and discussing the texts of the laws.
> And it is not for that one cannot be carried out, all the North American
> citizens surely enter in the Great Canyon (?), the problem is that it is
not
> practical neither executive.
>
> The guarantees will be in the statutes, how the guarantees for the
citizens
> of their country are in the constitution of a country. And in this case
> there are particularities for that it is the beginning. You would
> participate in the writing of the Declaration of Rights of Jefferson? (if
> you lived in that time).  And if it had participated, who did give him the
> permission?, you did ask to the citizens if they agreed with the text?.
did
> Obviously later all agree with that wonderful text. (I say all for that
that
> text was the base for the constitution of my country).
>
> ..........................
> [ES]
> ¿Tú participaste en la redacción de las últimas 10 leyes de tu país?
> ¿Tú participaste en la redacción de las últimas 10 reglas internas en tu
> empresa? (si no eres el jefe)
>
> Estoy seguro que no participaste en la redacción, pero también estos
seguro
> que SI participaste o tienes el derecho constitucional de vetar cualquier
> ley que el Parlamento redacte.
>
> No es posible aplicar Democracia directa por razones prácticas.
> No me imagino al pueblo norteamericano o cualquier otro, todo, reunido en
el
> Gran Cañón redactando y discutiendo los textos de las leyes. Y no es por
que
> no se pueda hacer, seguramente todos los ciudadanos norteamericanos entran
> en el Gran Cañón (?), el problema es que no es práctico ni ejecutivo.
>
> Las garantías estarán en los estatutos, cómo las garantías para los
> ciudadanos de su país están en la constitución de un país. Y en este caso
> hay particularidades por que es el comienzo. ¿Tu participarías en la
> redacción de la Declaración de Derechos de Jefferson? (si vivieras en esa
> época). Y si hubiera participado, ¿quién le dio el permiso?, ¿Ud. le
> preguntó a los ciudadanos si estaban de acuerdo con el texto?. Obviamente
> después todos estuvimos de acuerdo con ese maravilloso texto. (Digo todos
> por que ese texto fue la base para la constitución de mi país).
>
>
> cordially,
> Mauro. -
>
>
> ----- Mensaje original -----
> De: Richard Henderson
> Para: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Enviado: Viernes, 18 de Julio de 2003 08:30 p.m.
> Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Hugh Blair <hblair@hotfootmail.com>
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Richard Henderson
> > >
> > > Where Panel opinion and Membership opinion diverge, whose
> > > opinion will take precedence?
> >
> > Richard, you have the wrong question because you don't
> > understand the intent. Here's how I see this happening:
>
>
> Hi Hugh,
>
> No I don't have the wrong question, I have the question I wanted to ask.
>
> I wasn't alluding to the specific decisions on how to constitute the
Panel,
> but to the long-term relationship between the Poll and the Panel.
>
> Say here are 120 issues polled in the coming 12 months...
>
> Say the Panel disagrees with the expressed opinion of the Membership in 7
of
> those issues.
>
> "Where Panel opinion and Membership opinion diverge, whose opinion will
take
> precedence?"
>
> That is my question.
>
> Abel implies that in such cases, the contested issues would be put to a
> "full vote". But some would argue that an elected Panel should be allowed
> the slack to exercise its own judgements, contrary to Poll findings,
> particularly where the result is marginal.
>
> And then you are into very grey and contentious areas.
>
> What I'm saying is that to pre-empt future conflict, we should state
clearly
> the rules of precedence.
>
> Personally, I do not like the argument that you let elected Panelists do
> what they want, and everything will be alright in the end because you can
> always vote them out later. I dislike that argument because the damage may
> be done in the meantime.
>
> Personally, I've advocated all along that we should create a constitution
> where the Membership is always sovereign, and has powers to intervene. The
> Polling Process can be part of that Process of Intervention.
>
> If we are bottom-up, and implementing the wishes of the membership, then
we
> should safeguard the membership's priority. That does not mean running the
> whole org by Poll. Far from it. In any Polling Vote, there should be an
> option to "Allow the Panel to decide on grounds that I do not have an
> informed view of the issue"... something like that.
>
> There should also be a means of distinguishing serious polling issues from
> frivolous ones.
>
> But where issues are serious, and polled, and the majority want to
re-direct
> the Panel, then the constitution must re-enforce that right (IMHO). It
> should not be left to an unwritten 'understanding'.
>
> No doubt all these matters will be addressed *before* any move to initiate
> the Poll. And yes, I'm happy to be patient about all this, with thanks for
> your thoughts and efforts!
>
> But I conclude -  the line management:
>
> Members > Panel
> Members > Poll > confirm Panel policy or re-direct it.
>
> But it is always the Members who are the controlling guardians of their
own
> organisation.
>
>
> yrs,
>
> Richard H
>


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