Hello, Sandy. Thanks for your kind thoughts. I have played my part this year because I saw we were not using our available resources to land direct blows on our opponents. We have now seen that this can be done, and we have a national ad appearing in tomorrow's Australian (11/11/98). It's close to the time when I must pull my head in and leave the next phase to others, but I see that there are moves all around us for better use of the internet to strengthen the citizen participation which has been so telling in the world anti-MAI campaign. There is some debate-oriented software investigation being undertaken through Albert Langer's "Neither" list, which might interest you, though it's quite primitive at present. I'll attach an indicative message to lead you into it if you wish. (If you can't open the eml file, tell me and I'll send it in another format.) I'm not sure how big or effective the stop-mai-l list is. Though I keep posting stuff to it, I am not seeing much activity from it and am making some enquiries to its controllers. I think we need it to be properly functional if we are to build on the broad civil-society network we have developed since October. I'm very heartened by your ideas and am copying this correspondence to the stopmai and neither lists in the hope that it will strike a chord with others. Kind regards Brian Jenkins -----Original Message----- From: Sandy Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, 10 November 1998 10:39 Subject: MAI |***** |Brian, | |I am a recipient of mail under "STOP MAI". | |I just wanted to thank you and the other workers of |this group for the effort you make in keeping many |people informed. | |As the Age editorial points out, this exercise has |been a significant example of Web communication |and mobilisation. I'm starting to think of these |sorts of things as being "distributed meetings" or |projects. | |The Web as a "policy input device" plus parliamentary |democracies must surely be a powerful combination. | |You would probably be aware of the work of |Public Citizens' litigation group. <www.citizen.org> | |I could envisage Web-linked groups of interested parties |taking a similar pro-active approach with the actual |drafting of legislation, eg "eco-tax" provisions |and other useful stuff.... | |If complex software (Linux, for example) can be |developed/maintained/augmented over the Web, |surely like-minded citizens could chip away at |legislation drafts - then attempt to submit them |through (sympathetic) private member's bills? | |A case could be made that the party political |systems that exist in many countries mitigate |against the drafting of "creative" legislation - but |that there are many global citizens who have a |reasonably clear grasp of what could be useful |legislative policy. | |Why should public policy development be left |to the vagaries of political and bureaucratic |institutions? | |The expansive but loose network of |Non-Government Organisations that formed |around the MAI issue could possibly form |the basis of an alternative. | |At the very least, such action would guarantee |important issues a public airing, analogous to the |way MAI has been discussed. | |The MAI exercise has shown that the Web has much |more to offer the process of democratic participation |than just the facile "electronic plebiscite" concepts that |are so often touted | |Sorry, Brian. What started out as a simple thanks |has turned into an ideas gush. | |Thanks again though - and feel free to re-distribute this |if you deem it useful. Perhaps it might stir up some |resonance. | |Sandy Pollard |***** | | | | | | |
[LM] >Proposed Structure of the New (improved?) Neither Web Site [DK] I think you would do better to let the site improve by gradual evolution rather than by trying to design the perfect site in one go. Just add to, change, or subtract from what you already have as new ideas emerge. [AL] Still needs a structure for the evolution. Current lack of structure makes it harder to add, change, subtract. [LM] >Basic Structure > >Start Page (neither homepage) [DK] Needs to begin with some compelling statements that will grab the interest of a first-time visitor. [AL] Yes, definately. The other items listed in both original and counter proposal should be more of a side bar with the main focus on the compelling stuff. [LM] > Members' Pages > Email Lists > Media Releases > About Neither > General Information > Contact Information > Site Map > Links to other sites [DK] As a counter proposal, I would suggest: Summary and link to Current issue 1 Summary and link to Current issue 2 Summary and link to Current issue 3 etc About Neither (Summary and link) Contact Information Link to Email lists Link to links page Link to members page Link to media releases Link to site map [AL] Counter proposal looks better to me. Definately needs major focus on links to current major issues (either summary or at least one liner) and a para about Neither as well as the link to further info. [LM] >Members' Page > links to: > Members > links to alphabetical list of members' pages > Regional Groups > links to alphabetical list of regional groups' >pages > Issue Groups > links to issue groups' pages in chronological >order [DK] I don't believe all those subdivisions will be needed for some considerable time. I think we would be better off without them until the need develops, just including relevant links in the overall links page. [AL] Strongly disagree. My counter proposal is in opposite direction - links to indexes for Regional and Project groups should be direct from main home page at same level as link to index of Member pages rather than subordinate to latter. (i.e. 1 click from www.neither.org to each of Members, Regional and Project indexes, then 1 more click to individual sections). Much of the "About Neither" and "Link to Current Issue n" content should be based on (careful) selection of material from Project and Local (and sometimes Member) pages, thus giving an "official imprimatur" to material which has already been not merely submitted for inclusion but actually published without that "official imprimatur". The need for project and regional groups exists right now in order to be able to do that. Meeting that need and establishing viable groups will of course take considerable time - as will member pages for that matter. But the structure needs to be visibly in place to encourage people to setup regional and project groups just as it needs to be there to encourage people to setup their own member pages. This could ensure consistency in the "official line" at the same time as reducing the level of frustration about inevitable delays before any particular contribution can be integrated into the main pages and providing transparency as to what is being included and what is not, so that policy debates can focus on concrete alternatives. ("Neither as a whole should be saying X (link to example in project or regional or member page), not Y (link to example in main Neither pages)". My perspective is that we need to establish Neither as a national organization with a definate "official line" about which it is seriously "campaigning". This requires that the main Neither pages be under centralized editorial control, reflecting that "line" as it evolves, rather than directly responsive to individuals or groups within Neither putting various different "spins" on what they each think we should be saying as a group. Responsiveness to different viewpoints should be via policy debates and resolutions and election of leadership responsible for the orientation of the main Neither pages, official media releases etc - not by presenting a confused picture of what Neither stands for in the main Neither pages. If we succeed at all, it will obviously take a considerable amount of time and effort before we do have a real national organization with a democratic structure, clear membership and decision making processes, elected leadership, agreed policies etc. The way to get there is by drawing a sharp distinction between the "official" main Neither pages and the clearly separate individual Member pages, Regional group pages and Project group pages. The latter should be independently edited without unnecessary arguments about what they "ought" to say. That way different perspectives on how we should proceed can easily be expressed without having to reach agreement about them first, so everyone interested can actually see the diversity of views without feeling that people who are in fact speaking for themselves or their (Regional or Project) group are speaking officially on behalf of Neither as a whole. There does not seem to be any difference about that concerning individual Member pages, however I think the role of Regional and Project groups is just as important. (I prefer "Project" to "Issue" as a name for what I will try to outline below). Project groups might include groups working on things such Legal Challenges, Electoral Systems (PR methods etc), Minor Parties (relations with Democrats, Greens, One Nation etc), Parliament of the Net, Anti-ALP (exposing ALP policies from the left), Signature Campaign (Democracy Bill or other petitions), Organization (finding people to run Regional and Project groups), Republic Referendum, Web Content, Technical, Email Lists, Neither Magazine, Finance, Neither Office (administration services to all groups), History, Media, Civil Liberties etc etc. Some of these would have to be directly under control of central group (e.g. official media releases can't be released just because somebody in media project group has drafted one). Others need not be, or could even be working at cross puprposes with each other (eg there might be a "Republicans Against the Two Party State" project as well as a "Vote No" project if no policy decision has been made about that. The former might find itself unable to get much more than an index entry in the Projects page from the current central group while the latter would be likely to get extensive coverage as a "Current Issue". Open debate about that would take place in mailing lists but could not actually be resolved until there is a national organization with democratic structures in place to resolve it). We need to find ways to help people get started doing the things they want to do to towards smashing the two party state and build a national organization in the course of that, rather than wait until we are agreed on what to do and how to do it before anything starts happening. Recognized projects with separate sections under an overall "Neither" umbrella should facilitate that. Likewise regional groups need to be able to just get going in different places and start arranging local meetings and other activities that people can join in directly (many won't be able to participate effectively via just email lists etc). Hopefully the diversity of approaches reflected in this way will result in productive debate as to what changes should be made to the "official line" of the main Neither pages, and more rapid evolution of democratic structures to resolve such issues (and also issues about objections to the approach being taken by particular regional and project groups). Without a recognized outlet for "unofficial lines" within the Neither umbrella via independently edited Regional and Project sections there would instead be unproductive paralysis resulting from: a) There being no clear "official" direction to a "campaign" being waged by Neither as a whole due to direct responsiveness of the main Neither pages to differing orientations. And/Or b) Conflict and frustrations arising from attempting to maintain a coherent orientation by continuous debate about everything that appears or does not appear in the main Neither pages without an adequate understanding of the significance of each individual disagreement from an overall perspective. Until there actually is a national organization which can takeover from the current central group I see no alternative but to continue attempting to present a coherent "Neither" line with input from this email list and whatever else developes, but without an actual democratic decision making process in place. Starting independently edited Project and Regional sections of the Neither web site will accelerate the development of democratic structures that can eventually takeover the main Neither pages as well as the issue of media releases on behalf of Neither etc etc. (e.g. If there was resistance to that and strong Regional and Project groups had developed they would easily be able to agree among themselves to establish a new central group anyway, but until others are directly involved in Neither activities there isn't any real way to do that). PS Above approach may shed some light on the term "anarcho-Stalinist" ;-) ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is the Neither public email list, open for the public and general discussion. To unsubscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=unsubscribe To subscribe click here Mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=subscribe For information and archives goto http://www.neither.org/lists/public-list.htm
