Proposal: Technical and Parliamentary Approach to a Non-Oligarchical Assembly

[Achilles Asheelz]

 

                Today’s fast-paced internet world is often referred to in the context of “Big-Brother” and that he will use these ends to inevitably institute “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.”[i]   Indeed, it’s easy to wonder with remote surveillance software and devices being offered to the average citizen what Uncle Sam has up his sleeve and why he has no problem allowing these devices and technologies to propagate throughout the public network.  It should be noted that, although the internet was initiated by the Department of Defense, it didn’t gain major ground until it was released to the public. [ii]  [iii]  Many international communities control the protocols that allow the internet to function, but even then, their input is considered a ‘guideline.’  Even the most widely used of internet protocol suites (TCP/IP) does not strictly adhere to the elements outlined in OSI/RM standards.  This is important to note because everywhere authority has infringed, to some extent or another, the internet has pushed back. 

                Some of the most prevalent constructs used on the internet today were created with the INTENT to side-step authoritarian frameworks. [iv] [v]  Although governments have a strangle-hold on the important aspects of these technologies, they can still be used to organize and offer assistance in the matters faced by large and small protests alike.  They can be used to track individual decisions, objections, and petitions during an Assembly.  Furthermore, there are effective ways to encrypt data to make it difficult to obtain even by Uncle Sam.[vi] This can afford particular Assemblies the ability to have leadership without necessarily having leaders.  As I have mentioned in an earlier post, “Leadership,” is paramount to the successful execution and management of any momentum.[vii]  However, “Leadership,” is also viewed as Oligarchical in nature, thus a threat to the principle beliefs of the movement. 

                To combat this, and to help combat the Infiltration Techniques used since the dawn of time,[viii]I’ve attempted a mean-average of basic Parliamentary ideas with database tracking mechanisms and guidelines.  The intent is to elect, use, and capitalize upon a system that can be accessed, but not modified, by everyone involved in the protest.  A group of IT individuals will be maintained who input the data of past Assemblies and update as necessary to track decisions and input.  (Hopefully using an interactive SQL database, or the like, not Excel)  (This can be done near-live if these individuals are present).  This way groups can have proper representation and use a simple means to aggregate any and all assembly-members input.  This will isolate any potential trouble maker as a Pattern-of-Misconduct will become obvious.  It will also help members keep track of ideas and designs implemented in other locations.  (It will also, no doubt, point out other disruption techniques being employed under similar circumstances.  On the flip-side, it will accentuate those with a powerful and constructive voice who are integral to the cause). 

Standardization

 

                Just like with the internet, the following propositions and recommendations are just that, recommendations. Be advised that to properly implement a tracking mechanism, concerning any form of communication, it is paramount that all varying formats are “compatible.” So in order for any feature of this nature to exist, it’s necessary for a form of standardization to be implemented so people know: What to expect, Where to look for information, Why that information is presented, and How it affects the progress and influence of open-communities so they’re prepared, if they so desire, to forward a motion of their own. (Or stand against one they strongly oppose).[ix] 

                The point is to have an interactive community that is aware of the progress, goals, implementations, desires, and designs of the overall group.  This way they can associate with particular motions and argue with others, which will aid in the endeavor of contention and resolution.  Also, by having interactive and separate databases linked together by databases, we allow for deviation and progress depending on situational circumstances (and it simplifies searching).  By these ends, it is my hope that a core of common consensus is developed that grows and solidifies over time that inevitably amplifies the effectiveness of any given movement.  To summarize my intent: For the people, by the people. 

                First we review the Parliamentary Approach to reaching a consensus amongst a group of individuals.  It is assumed that after the size of a group reaches a certain level it becomes a representative parliament.  The tracking and recording of motions isolates the power-hungry from the beneficial participants, and by implementing this interactive feature over certain technologies, databases allow mass participation.  Rules can be agreed upon that allow a certain level of ‘voting’ to force a review of a motion or to dismiss a condition.  This design, Mass Participatory Representative Parliament (MPRP), will require user registration and encryption to reduce fraudulent manipulation, but otherwise is entirely possible.  The trick, in that endeavor, is making the interface user-friendly; more on the technical aspects following the conceptual overview. 

 

                To properly record things in a database subjects must be placed in a ‘field.’  These fields of information may contain small snippets of information or links of entire documents.  The fields must be standardized to create interactive platforms that are useful to the end-user and the participants using these resources to further their agendas.  As one of the primary objectives of this proposal intends to track participants in Assembly and their motions I recommend a basic database format that lists:  The Assembly members name (or a reference to which everyone will understand), Location of the Assembly (IE: Boston, NYC, or NYC docks, etc…) and the seven motions of basic Parliamentary Function.[x]  They are as follows:

1. Motion
2. Postpone Indefinitely
3. Amend
4. Commit
5. Question
6. Table
7. Adjourn

 

                Also, to properly track participation and what is introduced I would include two other categories: Unrelated and Disruptive.              

                The two additional categories may seem similar, (and in many cases may very well be), but an unrelated motion might be the work of an innocent and concerned citizen that does not understand the underlining process.  Unrelated is expected to be a highly populated field.  Disruptive is noted for the obvious emotional concerns mentioned to derail an assembly and detract from the overall point of assembling to begin with.

                As this document is concerned only with introducing an idea to increase the effectiveness and participation factors of related movements, the depth of possible database functions will not be discussed.  This general overview is to give an idea of the information that will be presented so a possible consensus of features can be discussed.  I’m summarizing under the idea that this entire proposal may be considered trash and thrown out.  

                Databases are very versatile and are used heavily in internet traffic today – they are also very easy to implement with CMS systems that simplify the process.  With the right knowledge on security the difference between “submitting” data and “viewing” data could relate to what server the information is hosted on.  (For those tech-savvy readers)  Now, enough of the tech lingo lets progress: 

 

The Data

 

                The particular format of the “links” residing in the database will not be covered because this whole thing could be scrapped, however, the content should include: Time, Date, Location, and Quotes.  The Quotes section should include, as close as possible, the exact words of whatever motion or concept was put forward.  This way the intent of the person can be read, an in-between the lines approach, and possible derivative databases can be produced that allow users to vote whether the motion was beneficial or a waste of time.  (This will help track those who are beneficial, and proper subjects of representation, and those who should do everyone a favor and step down) 

Concept

 

                The concept of non-oligarchical assembly is based on the fact of mass-participation as a check and balance to representation.  As a factor that can immediately intervene, in a non-distraction way, on representatives, the people are in effect representatives themselves.  This model intends to keep those knowledgeable of particular subjects and methods as elected ‘representatives,’ who we may also refer to as SME’s (Subject Matter Experts), (an effective model to reduce lag, ignorance, and confusion), while, at the same time, allowing the people to easily overwhelm concepts that are dangerous and seem foolish.  At which stage the representative would have to explain their viewpoint and their motion in detail to either garner support or have the motion removed.  (And possibly themselves removed, too) 

                The origination of this concept derived from my considering an approach on social hierarchy that is much akin to Peer-to-Peer networking and ‘torrent’ concepts in relation to the internet.  I wanted to remove the flaws of “direct” democracy, (An extensive list.  No one can be an expert on everything), while also addressing the issues of modern representation that can easily be hoodwinked and controlled by external factors.  The primary flaws of this design are:  It requires a solid core of technically proficient individuals, and it relies on technology to offset prior barriers that impede and distort communication.  This implies that security is paramount, but that’s not as much of an issue as some may assume.  Layered Networks, Proxy Servers, Firewalls, and a difference between participatory and administrative databases will alleviate most common issues. 

Proposal

 

                The official proposal:  this model can either minimize or remove entirely the current problems being faced by protest organizations, while still keeping the power-structure decentralized, to promote further activity between participants and the decision-making process, while reducing the risk of being derailed, manipulated, hijacked, or destroyed by hostile third-parties.  Security and usability are paramount and are a top-priority of this proposed project.  Further details and alterations should be decided in a group environment. 

 

 

 

---

[i] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Theory_and_Practice_of_Oligarchica...) Emmanuel Goldstein, a fictional story integral to Orwell’s 1984.

[ii] (http://www.ietf.org/)

[iii] (http://www.ieee.org/index.html)

[iv] (http://www.bittorrent.com/)

[v] (http://www.kazaa.com/)

[vi] (http://www.gnupg.org/)

[vii] (http://occupyamerica.ning.com/profiles/blogs/tea-party-and-occupy-t...)

[viii] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO)

[ix] (http://www.reliancestandards.co.uk/importance-of-standards.html)

[x] (http://www.parliamentaryprocedure.net/roberts-rules.html)

[Terry Bain]

Thomas Edison's first patented invention was a vote recorder.  "Edison was issued U. S. Patent 90,646 on 1 June 1869.  A fellow telegrapher named Dewitt Roberts bought an interest in the invention for $100 and took it to Washington, D.C. to exhibit to a committee of Congress.  The chairman of the committee, unimpressed with the speed with which the instrument could record votes, told him that 'if there is any invention on earth that we don't want down here, that is it.'  The slow pace of roll call voting in Congress and other legislatures enabled members to filibuster legislation or convince others to change their votes.  Edison's vote recorder was never used." 

Thanks for an innovative idea to help break the Occupy Movement out of the Delphi Deadlock.  Oppositiion to this idea coming from the  "if there is any invention on earth that we don't want down here, that is it." point of view should be viewed with suspicion.  Discussion, anyone?