Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Thomas and all assembly members,

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on
> >whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
> >competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale
> >for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> >intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> >changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> >community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
> >alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet
> >resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."
>
> _Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
> entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at
> this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
> entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence
> would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)

  I do not see that the GA or the DNSO for that matter would be effected
one way of another if such a vote was in favor or a rebid of the ICANN
contract.  Such a vote simply sends a message that ICANN needs to
be reformed and if not the GA members, if in the affirimitive, believe that

the ICANN in under it's present leadreship and in it's present form
is disfunctional or not in compliance witht he MoU and the White
Paper.  This is not was effects the DNSO GA or even the DNSO.

>
>
> If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
> for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
> radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
> _fundamental_ _principles_.

  Why?  There is not need to mitigate such granularity Thomas that
I can see.  The resolution in and of itself DOES state one way ot another
just exactly that ICANN either adopt redical changes or be rebid.

>
>
> There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a
> vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
> wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
> actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it
> already has done so.)

  Yes it already has done so, and more than once...

>
>
> There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
> guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
> current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask
> for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> you, James.

  I like James motion or the one I crafted from James original post just
fine.
I second James motion AS IS.

>
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html