Re: [WDDM] Toward a WDDM Charter

[Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>]

At 21:56 -0500 3-01-2007, Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net wrote:
> Toward a WDDM Charter
>
> To:         WDDM Membership
> From:     Mark Antell, editor CitizenPowerMagazine.net
>
> May I request that reviewers read this note completely before
> responding?  Thank you.
>
>  About three months ago I volunteered to help out with a WDDM
>  charter because I think (as do we all) that direct democracy would
>  lead to better governance; and that an organization of activists
>  might help define and implement improved democracy.
>
>  On conversation with several WDDM members it became clear
>  that a number of issues need to be discussed and resolved before
>  a draft charter can be drafted.  So ... you will find below a series
>  of eight critical issues entitled “Decisions underlying a charter for
>  WDDM.”  The “Decisions” document also includes positions that
>  might be chosen on these issues.  These issues and positions have
> been circulated before to a limited group.
>
>  I’m now requesting that members of WDDM comment on the
>  questions and options on a point-by-point basis. While standardized
>  responses will not be required,  I would hope that people would
>  generally indicate point-by-point whether they support option A, or
>  option B, or something else entirely.
>
>  Following the “Decisions” review and response (let’s say 4 weeks,
>  ie by Feb 4, 2007), co-sponsors (volunteers welcome) would join in
>  drafting a proposed charter based on feedback.   The “Decisions”
>  document is exploratory and therefore includes options.  The charter
>  proposal by contrast would not include options.  The process for
>  review, discussion, modification, and approval of the proposed
>  charter is partly dependant on what the proposed charter says.
>  Under the process set by option 6A, the proposed charter would
>  require a 'second' from 10% of the active membership to be posted
>  for vote.  Under any scenario, charter adoption must include a
>  deliberative process ending with a vote.
>
>  Those wishing to take a leadership position in this process will be
>  expected to motivate other discussion participants.
>
>  Best,
>  Mark Antell
>
>  Let me note a personal bias for option A on all of the questions
>  below.  I think that  an organization chartered per options A
>  would be an exemplar of direct democracy.
>
> ------------------------
>
>  Decisions underlying a charter for WDDM
>  Positions on the issues below largely define what should be included
>  in a proposed charter for WDDM.
>
> I. Principles.
>
>  1. Organizational Goals.  We’d like to make a better world.  One
>  in which all adults have equality under law, plus the four basic
>  freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of religion (or more broadly,
>  freedom of conscience), freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
>  1A. WDDM is dedicated to the study, education, and implementation
>  of direct democracy, deliberation, and consensus at all levels of
>  governance from the local to the supra-national level.  Direct
>  democracy means enhancement and broadening of initiative, referendum
>  and recall.  It also means use of modern technology to improve
>  opportunities for deliberation and discourse.
>  OR
>  1B. WDDM is dedicated to the study, education, and implementation
>  of direct democracy at all levels of governance.
>  OR
>  1C.  WDDM is dedicated to the study and education of direct
>  democracy.  This option should allow tax-advantaged contribution
>  (under US law) to WDDM as an educational non-profit institution.

antonio:
The term "Direct" of Direct Democracy means that it is the target
-- to wit, the addressed People -- who have to implement Democracy
themselves.  Accordingly, what the WDDM members have to do, is
providing the target with the tools to implement democracy *locally*
as the first step.

"Implementing Democracy" means implementing policies.  Of course,
small policies -- whose paragon are family-sized policies -- do not
require any special organization.

Organization is required as soon as policies with a over-family or
general interest are accounted for being implemented as country-sized
or worldwide-sized policies.  Accordingly, a democracy principle comes
into play: "Top-down policies with a bottom-up origin are the only
ones that function effectively (i.e., democratically)"

Accordingly, I agree in principle that policies must have a (top-down)
implementing organization: how could policies with a larger size be
implemented otherwise?  provided only that their origin comes out
from the people grassroots bottom-up.  Otherwise, policies being
initiated - originated by the implementing organization (our WDDM
included) are policies with a top-down origin. Undemocratic policies.

>  2. Organizational Methods - commitment to direct democracy
>  2A.WDDM will be an exemplar for direct democracy.  As much
>  as possible, decision making power will flow from direct vote of the
>  membership.
>  OR
>  2B. WDDM will strive to implement direct democracy in its own
>  operations.  However, in the initial organizational phase WDDM
>  will assign considerable responsibility to an executive committee.

(antonio)
If I remember well, the original WDDM Founding Document said
that the membership had to vote decide for internal affairs only.
A Worldwide Democracy Charter cannot be an internal affair of
WDDM, since it would be applied to the Democracy outside.


>  3. Organizational Methods - encouraging discourse
>  3A. WDDM shall continue to maintain a BBS or WIKI to which
>  all members may post proposals or opinions.  Many electronic
>  BBS systems are afflicted with the same problem: they provide
>  high visibility to the fastest and most aggressive multiple posters.
>  The executive board shall, early on, propose methods to calm this
>  problem, probably by making it easy for each BBS user to locate
>  input from voices that they value*.
>  OR
>  3B. WDDM shall continue to maintain a BBS or WIKI to which
>  all members may post proposals or opinions.

(antonio)
I am not familiar with WIKI, and most of all with BBS: what does
this acronym stand for?   Hence a democratic problem arises:
has worldwide Democracy to be up only for those people who are
familiar with (WIKI and) BBS?  This option, more that elitist, looks
ridiculous.  However, even if all of you WIKI and BBS bureaucracy
masters would succeed to set up a political organization and give it
the label "worldwide Democracy", I'll will keep on criticizing it as
elitist (bureaucratic) democracy.

In short, democracy activists should not vote democratic policies.
They (we) have only to enable the People to originate policies --
and to control the implementing policies political organization.


>  4. Membership
>  4A. Membership is limited to those who agree that governance
>  would be improved by expansion and facilitation of direct democracy,
>  deliberation and consensus.  Active members must also commit to
>  review proposals and vote on motions posted on the WDDM website.
>  OR
>  4B. As above, plus some language recognizing groups within WDDM.

(antonio)
Membership of democracy cannot be limited any way. Any one
who advances a proposal or policy that has been implemented within
one's territory (family->village->town->county->country) and wants
to enlarge it worldwide, is welcomed.  Anyone who wants to apply
the WDDM store for democratic suggestions or/and models to be
implemented locally, at one's home, is welcomed.

> II. Business Rules
>
>  5. Structure
>  Can we simply agree to start with the simplest possible structure:
>  Chair, Vice Chair, and Secretary-Treasurer - elected for a one
>  year term by majority vote?  Later, via the charter amendment
>  process, we could add additional structure including perhaps an
>  Elections Officer, Ombudsperson, standing committees, etc. etc.
>  Executive board communications, and other committee
>  communications shall be open for review by the membership.

(antonio)
The simplest possible structure, since the active WDDM members
are few people who have to vote as least as possible for internal
requirements only.  A WDDM round table is all we need of, plus
a WDDM web master to update the WDDM web site.  This implies
that every WDDM member is free to implement democratic policies
(policies with a bottom up origin that have been decided by the local
inhabitants -- perhaps by voting) and is naturally invited to present
the results to WDDM for comments and storage visibility purposes.


>  6. Initiative.  Initiative means a process which allows the
>  membership to raise an issue and to bring it to binding vote of the
>  membership.

(antonio)
No WDDM decision should be binding to the people outside.

>  6A. Any member may post an initiative for discussion.  Posting
>  for decision shall require several "seconds" from the membership."
>   A  two step process for initiatives is established:
>  -A proposal is posted for discussion by one or more ‘sponsors.’
>  The ‘sponsors’ of the proposal will decide if they wish to modify
>  the proposal in response to discussion.  If so, the proposal is
>  modified and reposted for discussion.
>  -If, after discussion and possible modification, 10% of the
>  membership agree to second a proposal, then it will be posted as
>  a motion.

(antonio)
Let's get rid once forever of the 6A bureaucratic stuff.

>  OR
>  6B. Any member may post an initiative, first for discussion, and
>  then as a motion for decision.

(antonio)
Provided only the decision is not binding for the people outside.




>  7. Approval of Motions via Initiative.
>  7A. Most organizations recognize a distinction between business
>  motions, versus motions which modify the charter.   Business motions
>  are adopted by a simple majority vote.  Charter modification motions
>  require a super-majority (of those voting) of 66%.
>  OR
>  7B. Business motions or charter modification motions are adopted
>  via a simple majority of those voting.  (Author’s note: I don’t
>  understand how this option would work, but one commenter strongly
>  requested it.  I’ll drop this option unless someone steps in to
>  explain it.)

(antonio)
Dear Author, now you make a WDDM charter appear like a rabbit
from the juggler's hat.  A Charter is too much for internal purposes,
where some few Principles are more than enough -- see the original
WDDM FD.  A Charter is too little for external purposes: better if
we store inside our WDDM web site as many Charter drafts as possible,
eg. Bruce's suggested Charter, Stephen's suggested Charter, Pino's
suggested Charter, and so on, into local (different) languages, and then
let the outside people choose from among what they like it better.


>  8. Referenda on Executive Board Decisions.  Referendum is a
>  process whereby an action of the legislative body is brought to the
>  membership for validation or disapproval.
>  8A. The executive board is empowered to pass temporary business
>  motions; however executive board decisions will be immediately
>  posted for referendum vote.  A simple majority of voting members
>  is necessary to approve executive board business motions.
>  Decisions not approved will cease to have any force.
>  Charter changes may be proposed by the executive committee but
>  are approved through the normal charter modification process.
>  OR
>  8B. Decisions of the executive board may be overridden by the
>  standard initiative process.

(antonio)
I do not think of WDDM as a shadow-government -- for which
only your 8. point could be appropriate.

Far less presumptuously, WDDM should offer the the people
outside the necessary means to implement their I&R policies
at home.

Let me quote Bernard's post on this topic;
_______________________
At 13:45 +0000 6-01-2007, Bernard Clayson wrote:
> I agree, people said that I would be breaking the law by doing
> public-run referendums, I have done two so far .......... and no
> one has taken me to court.
> That appears to be the biggest reason why democracy does not
> progress - fear.
> If the advocates do not have the courage of their convictions,
> why should anyone take any notice of them.
> It also shows why there is a demand for an organisation, they
> want something to hide behind.
> Not very encouraging is it.
________________________

I do not think that Bernard applied to any WDDM charter,
to organize two Referendums at home.  What does Democracy
lack of, it is no bald WDDM charter, but less fearful people in the
WDDM outside. How to educate them to advance I&R  DIY
(Do It Yourself)


Hoping this helps,

antonio
> ---------------------
> * (From Item 3A above)
> Possible suggestions for regulating aggressive multiple postings include:
>     i)     The BBS or WIKI shall support tools allowing each reader
> to select voices that they wish to consult first.
>     ii)     The BBS or WIKI shall provide a default, high priority
> location for executive board review and recommendation on each
> proposal.
>     iii)     The WIKI shall automatically order postings, based
> perhaps on a ‘poster score’  calculated from the average number of
> readers per posting.