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

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

Jonathan Weinberg's said that the motion on the DoC rebid concerns "which
*forum* should be deciding how to address ICANN's self-acknowledged crisis."
Some persons on and off list have expressed concern over a forum that is US
based.  The DoC contracts are currently the only leverage over ICANN.  DoC
wants to get out from under the ICANN mess, and the EU, Japan, China and
others don't want a US only solution either.  The motion could be modified
to make it clear that a rebid should seek an international (not US only)
solution.

-----modified motion text------------
"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, provided that the new competition would
address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management.
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."
-----end of modified motion text----------

The rationale for the motion is, as suggested by Professor Weinberg, to
shift the forum for reform to the DoC, in the short term.   Those who
support the motion believe the Committee on ICANN reform will not embrace
the types of changes that are needed, in terms of accountability to the
Internet community.

To inform this debate further, I can report that the DoC is committed to a
private sector solution, will not support turning ICANN over to the ITU, and
in general is quite responsive to many of the civil society concerns that
have been expressed.  On the other hand, the DoC probably needs a push to
get involved.   ICANN is not a high priority at DoC, and most people see
involvement in ICANN as low yield for the time involved.  A GA motion would
be helpful and timely.

With regard to Thomas R's concerns regarding how such a vote would influence
the ICANN' board's decisions regarding the future of the GA, I agree that if
the GA proves to be extremely docile and unwilling to criticize the board on
important points, it may rise in the eyes of those board members who cannot
tolerate criticism.  It will also lose respect among those who see the GA as
a forum for telling truth to power.  People will have different views on how
to make the tradeoff.   People who disagree with the motion can vote against
it.  At this point, a decision to not permit a vote will be interpreted,
perhaps wrongly, that the ICANN leadership, including the GA Chair, believe
the motion would pass.  In fact, I have no idea if the motion would pass or
fail.  Finally, Thomas's comments make it clear that the motion doesn't
suffer from lack of procedure, but is opposed on the grounds that it crosses
the line in terms of what is considered acceptable discourse.  So this
debate is both about the substance of the motion, and the issue of where (or
how) this line is drawn.

Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040


--
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