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

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

Bill and all assembly members

William S. Lovell wrote:

>    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.

  Yes I am aware of that.  I was saying that Roberto's comments
puts him in the Undecided category, that's all...

> 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.

  Also previously understood.  I think you misunderstood my response
Bill.  Again, I was ONLY keeping the Tally of whom, how many
and which category they currently stand.

  I agree and have agreed from the very beginning (See archives)
that this Rebid Motion can of course be discussed and debated,
but that a vote is due in a few days based on the support, no support
or undecided as time goes along until the ballot is issued.  Clear now
Bill?

>
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

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