Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

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

Jamie and all assembly members,

James Love wrote:

> Roberto, I also liked much of the Hoffman and Alvestrand papers, and both of
> them seemed to be at great variance with the Board and staff positions.

  Our members decidedly did not care for either the Hoffman or the
Alverstand papers.  Most of our members felt that they were variations
on a theme of just propping up the present ICANN BOD and staff
"Clique" and were or did not adequately address the MoU and White
Paper requirements.

  It is also broadly considered on a global basis as well as amongst
quite a number of congressmen that the present ICANN BoD
and staff cannot be trusted.  This is a very central and critical
problem.  As such, the Rebid motion now being debated and
discussed is one of two ways in which ICANN can revamped
or replaced...

  The rest of you arguments below Jamie we [INEGroup]
agree with...

>  How
> does one get from her to there (or somewhere similiar), in terms of where
> ICANN is headed?  The rebid puts the DoC into the mix, and allows
> alternatives such as the Hoffman or Alverstrand type proposals, to be really
> considered as alternatives.     A rebid is a particular process of managing
> change, leaving it up the ICANN board is another.  I don't think it is
> realistic for us to reach an agreement on the particular alternative, right
> now, but a demonstration of support for a rebid would be correctly taken as
> a vote of no confidence in the current Staff/Board proposals.     I would
> have greater confidence that the Hoffman/Alvestrand and similiar proposals
> would be given consideration in a rebid environment, than without.  Also,
> the ICANN board itself would have to address accountability issues more
> seriously if facing competition.  We should at least entertain the notion
> that non-profits can face consequences for their failures.    Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
> To: <wsl@cerebalaw.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 3:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote
>
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> 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