<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote - the tally is 17 for, 5 against, 1 undecided
No, no, Jeff. Read it again. The poll on which you are counting votes was
taken to
determine whether or not there was sufficient interest in the subject to
proceed to
serious discussion and presumably to one or more well-defined motions and
ultimately
a vote. It was not at all on the merits, although nothing prevents anyone
from discussing
those merits at any time they might choose. Such posts, indeed, serve to
show that
there is such interest, regardless of what position on the merits
that they may espouse.
Bill Lovell
Jeff Williams wrote:
3CD875EF.FB81A440@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 tha
t 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 d
efine "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
co
ntrol.
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|