Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote - the tally is 17 for, 5 against, 1 undecided

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

Roberto and all assembly members,

  Than I guess this puts you in the undecided category Roberto.
So now the tally is 17 for, 5 against, 1 undecided...

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >.... If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
> >Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
> >if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
> >should favor one.
> >
>
> I am not sure I agree.
>
> I do believe that, in particular shooting itself in the foot at Accra in
> rejecting the AtLarge proposals of the Bilt committee (considering also the
> huge effort that all parties have put in order to come to some basic
> consensus points), ICANN has shown that it has no intention to fulfil its
> obligations.
>
> The problem is "obligations with who". Does ICANN have obligations with USG,
> or the Internet community? If it is the former, then the reasonment is
> correct: let's ask USG to turn the page.
> Let's go for a moment to the "other" decision that ICANN (and NC/DNSO,
> incidentally) has taken disregarding painfully obtained "community
> consensus". Somebody can spell "WG-C"?
> In several occasions I have claimed that this whole circus about ICANN
> started with two objectives:
> 1. introduce new TLDs (and not just 7, but "a lot of")
> 2. break NSI's monopoly
> Several years later, we have an ICANN that wishes to establish contracts
> will ccTLDs (that have operated well until now without any "adult
> supervision" by ICANN), but mysteriously fails to guarantee the separation
> of Registrar and Registry for .com (one of the necessary conditions for fair
> competition).
> Only 7 TLDs have been introduced so far, and whoever has attended MdR knows
> how (remember the motivation for changing .air to .airo?).
>
> What will bring a rebid now? I bet on a couple of years of delays, in which
> for instance no new TLDs will be delegated. Well, "nihil sub sole novo", as
> I have asserted way back in 1998 (CORE General Assembly in Washington, DC)
> that the continuation of the statu quo was the real purpose of the White
> Paper, hidden behind a mask of wider democracy. In summary, "change
> everything in order not to change anything" ("Il Gattopardo", famous book of
> Tomasi di Lampedusa on the sicilian society of the 19th Century).
>
> What is the solution? I don't know. I have a lot of sympathy for Paul
> Hoffman's proposal
> (http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html, already
> posted but never referenced). I still have to digest the implications of
> some details, but as a whole I like it muuuuuch better than the one tabled
> for voting. Of course, it has the big disadvantage that it has to be read
> and unterstood, is not an easy slogan that can move the masses, in short, it
> is more an IETF approach than a GA-DNSO approach, but in the end it will pay
> because it proposes a reasonable basis of discussion for an alternative, as
> opposed to the 77. Cavalry approach.
> May I also suggest another interesting text:
> http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html. Different ideas, but the
> same effort: to define "what should be fixed", not "who has to fix it".
> IMHO, the only way to have the stakeholders heard.
>
> Let me also comment on the vote.
> On the timetable, I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas' approach: let's
> continue the discussion for few days. I honestly don't understand the hurry
> in taking a vote without fully understanding the implications thereof.
> On the vote itself, I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by
> invoking adult supervision, but I also believe that if the GA is so foolish
> to do it, it has all rights to do it. I belong to the category of people
> that does not want to punish suicide. And in this sense, the more
> last-minute voters we get, the quicker the death. Watch out, though, that
> this result in the GA will be shown as evidence by those who always opposed
> the AtLarge to prove their point: individual users can be captured by a well
> orchestrated campaign, and therefore the power should stay solidly under
> control.
> In other words, this will not only suicide GA, but kill hopes for individual
> representation *ever*: even if the "contract" will be rebid, do you *really*
> expect new_co (as it used to be called) not to be subject to pressure from
> commercial interests? With such nice example of flooding the (GA) voting
> registry with people that never debated the issue (in the GA), they will
> have a good point.
>
> In summary, most people on this list has several points of disagreement with
> ICANN. This is the document to discuss and put forward. Let's define "what
> has to be fixed", propose it to ICANN BoD (maybe to NC), and go to a motion
> of censure *if_the_answer_from_the_BoD_is_negative*.
> But let's define what we want, instead of saying "We don't know what we
> want, but anyway ICANN can't deliver - daddy, please kick them out!".
>
> Rewgards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
> --
> 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