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.)
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_.
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 h
eld when ICANN
actually crosses the Rubicon. (Some will, of course, argue that it
already has done so.)
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.
--
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/