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

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

My best wishes to you, Mauro.

My intuition tells me that you have sincere democratic instincts, and plenty
of good will.

----- 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 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission


> Richard,
>
> You are making the typical error: to question the democratic system,
through
> of the men that tried to apply it in a mistaken way.
>
> I reiterate him that the guarantees will be established in the statutes,
as
> the guarantees of their employment, their government and their club, they
> are written in the laws, ordinances and corporate regulations to which you
> belong.
>
> If what you affirm is certain, any country that has gone by a dictatorship
> he/she had had a republican or federal government again, all had adopted a
> direct and not representative democratic system for that, for example in
> Latin America, all the dictatorships arose of democratic governments that
> mistook the road.
>
> Richard, trust people that you chose. In mess personnel I am extremely
> democratic and I have demonstrated it. I am for sure some véz will make a
> mistake, but it would never put to the panelists about the decision of the
> members.
>
> cordially,
> Mauro. -
>
> ..........................................
> [ES]Ud. está cometiendo el error típico: cuestionar el sistema
democrático,
> cuestionando los hombres que lo intentaron aplicar de manera equivocada.
>
> Le reitero que las garantías estarán establecidas en los estatutos, como
las
> garantías de su empleo, su gobierno y su club, están escritas en las
leyes,
> decretos y reglamentaciones corporativas a las cuales Ud. pertenece.
>
> Si lo que Ud. afirma es cierto, ningún país que haya pasado por una
> dictadura hubiera vuelto a tener un gobierno republicano o federal, todos
> hubieran adoptado un sistema democrático directo y no representativo, por
> que, por ejemplo en Latinoamérica, todas las dictaduras surgieron de
> gobiernos democráticos que equivocaron el camino.
>
> Richard, confíe en la gente que Ud. eligió. En lio personal soy
> extremadamente democrático y lo he demostrado. Estoy seguro que alguna véz
> me equivocaré, pero jamás pondría a los panelistas sobre la decisión de
los
> miembros.
>
> cordialmente,
> Mauro.-
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Mensaje original -----
> De: Richard Henderson
> Para: A/S Mauro D. Ríos
> CC: @Atlarge Lista
> Enviado: Sábado, 19 de Julio de 2003 03:38 a.m.
> Asunto: Re: [atlarge-discuss] The VOTE on the Polling Commission
>
>
> 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