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

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Thu, 2 May 2002 17:25:31 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:

>_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.  

Indeed.

>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 held when ICANN  
>actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it  
>already has done so.)

The Board has already adopted the two biggest changes - abolishing at
large seats on the board and abolishing the independent review
process.  

>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.  

There are no guarantees in life but I think people have learnt a lot
from the ICANN experiment and any successor may be different
organisations for different functions.

DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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