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:

> DPF wrote:
> > I believe that any future influence would be so small and
> > insignificant that the preferred course is to get DOC to rebid the
> > contract.  ICANN have miserably failed to meet the MOU so why should
> > they get to keep the job?
>
> Let's make sure that I actually understand what you are saying here:
>   The GA's influence is currently minimal, there is no chance that this
> could get better  in a future ICANN, so we can just as well  commit
> collective public harakiri?

  Stop being a knot head Thomas.  It is unbecoming for a chair.  No of
course Dave is not suggesting any such thing.  Rather he is suggesting
that ICANN should gracefully either step aside and that DOC/NTIA
should take into account ICANN's performance as it is related to the
MoU and White Paper in any such rebid...  He is also from my
reading that ICANN has failed rather badly in their mission, meeting
the requirements of the MoU and White Paper, and purposefully
gamed any broad stakeholder participation in policy making that
is paramount to censorship...

>
>
> Because, quite frankly, that's what the kind of resolution which Jamie
> has been proposing would mean.  I want that everyone here is clear about
> this:  If this General Assembly passes, by vote, a declaration that just
> suggests a re-bid of ICANN functions, then this GA has expressed its
> distrust in the ICANN structures, of which it is part.  As a corollary,
> the GA would sign its own certificate of death by passing the resolution
> Jamie has proposed.  Bad enough, that certificate of death would most
> likely also be valid in a reformed ICANN - i.e., in the case that there
> is no rebid, despite the hopes some here may have.
>
> Do you folks want that?  More importantly, is the GA even the right
> place to declare ICANN process bankrupt?  Jamie:  Why do you want that
> this resolution is passed by the GA?  Why don't you try to make your
> points by channels outside the ICANN structure, if you believe that this
> structure is so flawed that it should not be reformed, but abandoned?
>
> In particular, this means that the resolution suggested by Jamie is
> entirely inappropriate if we want to exercise any influence on the
> reform process, or if we want to make a statement on that process.  Do
> we want to remind the ICANN community of some of the basic principles?
>   Then we should do just that, without the harakiri part.  We should
> clearly state the principles we are talking about.  We may even say that
> we believe there should be a re-bid of ICANN functions if these
> principles are not appropriately respected by ICANN's reform process.
>   But, in this case, we should not declare that we are giving up on ICANN
> process now.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler (mobile) <roessler@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