[ga] Re: Timetable and procedure for vote

[DannyYounger@cs.com]

Thomas,

Jamie has asked that the GA record its views on whether or not the US 
Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the services now 
provided by ICANN.  He states his rationale for asking for a rebid -- that 
ICANN has dramatically changed the intitial terms of refence for ICANN, that 
it is proposing even further changes, and that such proposals have met with 
extensive opposition in the Internet community.   He notes that the rebid 
would allow the NTIA to consider alternatives to the current ICANN plan for 
managing key Internet resources.

Why do you consider this to be "radical text"?  On what basis does this text 
ruin the GA's credibility?  Are we not a forum for policy issues relating to 
the Domain Name System?  Are we not at liberty to seek the best possible 
proposals for the management of the DNS resource?  Is it not possible that 
other entities could propose plans for the management/coordination of the DNS 
superior to those of ICANN management?  

On the basis of performance-to-date, do you believe that ICANN has earned the 
trust of the Community?  If it hasn't, what do you find objectionable about 
recommending that the NTIA consider alternative service providers?  This 
proposal doesn't exclude ICANN from the process, it only forces them to 
compete (and hopefully to craft the best possible plan for managing the DNS). 
 Is the concept of competition troublesome?  Last I heard, most people think 
of competition as healthy.

A re-bid scenario only forces ICANN to provide the DoC with the necessary 
assurances that it is the best qualified organization to provide coordinative 
services.  Personally, I would like to see such assurances.  ICANN might even 
have to change their mind and continue to allow a GA to exist in order to 
secure the DoC's favor.  

When I look at the Lynn Plan, I see no GA, do you?  Why worry about the 
"credibility" of the GA when ICANN management has already made plans to 
eliminate both the DNSO and the GA?  To whom do you want to be "credible"... 
to those that place no value in your participation?  Ever notice that Louis 
Touton and Stuart Lynn never forward any correspondence to the GA?  Their 
messages appear on the Council list, but never on the GA list.  We are not on 
their radar scope.  They only pay attention to those interests that 
financially prop up their regime.  

The GA is the home of discontent within ICANN.  ICANN has already made plans 
to silence their critics by eliminating the GA and by eliminating the 
At-large directors.  How much more abuse are you willing to put up with 
before the message sinks in?  Go ahead and defend ICANN as much as you like, 
but let your membership express its views.  
--
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