[ga] Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

Thomas,

I am assuming there is no obligation to produce a text that you agree with,
and that we will proceed with a ballot that includes a recommendation for a
rebid, which people are free to vote for or against.   As discussed earlier,
in response to discusison, I have inserted language to address the issue of
the need for an international (not US only) solution, and I have also
clarified that a rebid would not preclude an outcome that selected the ICANN
proposal.   The vote on this should be for this proposition:

(For or Against)

"The GA asks the the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition
for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition
would address the need to develop an international framework for DNS
management.  The rationale for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has
dramatically changed
the intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet community. The
rebid would allow the DoC to consider both the ICANN board proposal for
restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet
resources."

As I understand your missives, and forgive me if I don't fully appreciate
what is going on here, you have accepted that this can be voted on, but
would also welcome either that I withdraw (no thank you) or modify this
further, or if others would offer alternatives that are "less radical," as
you put it.  I have yet to see any support for specific "less radical"
ballot proposals, but wait to see what happens.

I would also add that so far I have not heard much in the way of substantive
criticism of the benefits of a rebid, but I have heard your and other
complaints that this is an inappropriate proposal for the GA itself to make.
It would be interesting to know if you or some others think that a rebid
would be a bad thing in itself, or if the probelm is only having the GA ask
for a rebid.    So far, most of what I have heard is the latter.

Jamie

PS, the discussion of this issue on your web log is certainly a rather
abbreviated summary of the debate.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Cc: "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 08, 2002 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Timetable and proceedure for vote


> On 2002-05-07 18:29:27 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >Thomas, fill us in on what is the timetable and procedure for a
> >vote.  With regard to the vote, how many proposals will be voted
> >on, and how do we agree on the final text of the questions?
>
> I described that process before, and you even agreed to it: Produce
> a draft text and a list of ten supporters until May 10, for a
> resolution which deals with perspectives blah blah blah, and you'll
> be on the ballot.  If there's no resolution which fulfills that
> condition, there's no vote.
>
> I have also described numerous times what kind of resolution I'd
> personally find reasonable.
>
> You are now free to either produce a radical text like what your
> original motion suggested, or you could try to take into account the
> suggestions made by some on this list, and produce a reasonable text
> which does not ruin the GA's credibility.  Finally, you could
> respect the fact that there is certainly no consensus on what the GA
> should say, and refrain from further asking for a vote in such a
> situation.
>
> Obviously, I believe that the first of these possibilities is the
> worst one, and that the last one is still best.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>


--
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