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

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

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> At 07.05.2002 19:05, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >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.
>
> 100% agreement, also with the assumption that the GA has the right to
> commit suicide.

  The GA is not committing suicide by having a vote on the rebid
of the ICANN Contracts..  In fact quite the contrary.

>
>
> Another point which some people seem to completely ignore is that
> the *problems* and the *major actors* will not simply change in
> any different setting -- neither in the Lynn proposal nor any
> other proposal.

  You may be right here.  However by having a rebid vote by the
GA members we as a assembly within the ICANN structure
are saying that the ICANN BOD and staff have failed in their
responsibilities to the extent that we believe that they should
no longer continue in their current capacities and possibly
a new set of interim BOD members and new staff would
better meet the requirements of the White Paper and the MoU..

> Do you really think that the Intellectual Property
> lobby (whether a DNSO constituency, a "forum" or any other form)
> would happily stand by if hundreds of new TLDs were added to the root?

  Perhaps they would not.  However that is not really the issue
at hand in a rebid vote by the GA members...

>
> That does of course not mean that we have to obey to their wishes,
> but we have to be realistic about what we *can* change.

  All things made or conceived by man can be changed...

>
> In private mail, I have already told Jamie that I think the chances
> of a rebid are zero, but even *if* the DoC chose to rebid the
> contract, it's hard to see how this GA vote will not be (ab)used
> to demonstrate exactly why the At Large is such a bad idea.

  A number of congressmen don't seem to share your view here...
More and more stakeholders/users don't seem to share this view
either.  Some of the folks at DOC/NTIA are at least open to
the possibility as well...

>
>
> >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!".

  We know exactly what we want.  the present form of ICANN isn't it.
the present form of ICANN has been hoist upon the stakeholders/users
without their consent but in their names, now and possibly in the future.
This has been clearly stated to the ICANN BOD and staff time and
time again.  They have collectively ignored what is wanted and what
is clearly NOT wanted.  As such, it is perhaps time for "Big Daddy"
DOC/NTIA to consider a rebid of the present MoU and White
Paper contracts for the present ICANN...


>
>
> Unfortunately, Jamie's resolution has captured everyone's attention
> for days now. Privately, people have told me that they think it
> is "a silly diversion", "not constructive"  and "distract[ing] so
> much attention from more important issues". But if you speak out,
> you risk being tarred and feathered as supporter of Stuart Lynn's
> reform proposal. It is frankly frustrating.

  What utter nonsense...

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
>

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