----- Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:56
AM
Subject: [WDDM] Toward a WDDM
Charter
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
6. Initiative. Initiative means a process which
allows the membership to raise an issue and to bring it to binding vote of the
membership.
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.
OR
6B. Any member may post an
initiative, first for discussion, and then as a motion for decision.
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.)
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.
---------------------
*
(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.