[ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

Note how the motion which drew fewer "yes" votes is promoted as the  
"most important" one in James Love's message to random-bits. 
ICANNwatch editor Ted Byfield even goes a step further: In his 
ICANNwatch piece at  
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=759>, he does not even  
mention motion 2.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/




----- Forwarded message from James Love <james.love@cptech.org> -----

From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 05:41:19 -0400
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote
List-Id: Discussion List of Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency  <discuss.icann-ncc.org>


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: <random-bits@lists.essential.org>
Cc: <reform-comments@icann.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 AM
Subject: CPTech on vote to rebid ICANN contracts

   [Note: CPTech statement on vote follows
    summary of Motion 1]

It isn't that common for an organization to vote to give
others a chance to replace it, but that is what the ICANN
DNSO "General Assembly" did yesterday.  The vote was
controversial within ICANN, generating hundreds of missives
to the GA discussion list, and resulting in the highest GA
vote tally ever recorded (218 voters), and the highest rate
of online voter participation (37.2 percent of registered
voters) since the GA was created two years ago.
(http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html)

The most important vote was "Motion 1," the so-called
"nuclear option," which called upon the US Department of
Commerce to rebid its contracts with ICANN.  The vote on
this motion was:

               148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
                54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1
                15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1

A similar but somewhat more restrained motion 2 which
criticized the ICANN board and its reform process also
passed:

               164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
                33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2
                19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2


Here is the guts of Motion 1:

"The Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
(ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of
reference for ICANN, and . . . these proposed changes have
met extensive opposition in the Internet community . . .
a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal
for restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for
managing key Internet resources. . . The General Assembly of
the Domain name Supporting Organization of Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks 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 . . .
privatization and internationalization of DNS services,
consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom."


CPTech statement of the GA vote,

"It is clear that the ICANN Board of Directors does not have
the support of the Internet community, and now it is
official that they do not have the support of their own
public forum, and the only consensus that exists is to
reject the ICANN board's proposed "reforms" for ICANN, and
start over.   The ICANN board is rapidly dismantling every
vehicle for democracy within ICANN, and this vote reminds
everyone why.  The ICANN board and staff is seeking to
impose an unpopular governance system on the Internet, and
the only way they can do that is to suppress avenues for
recording popular will.  The US Department of Commerce has
to confront a painful fact, ICANN is not working, not
listening, and not willing to heal itself.  There should be
consequences for failures, and even non-profit organizations
should face competition.  If ICANN can't tolerate elections
for its board members, and isn't willing to limit its own
powers in any meaningful way, it's time to think about
replacing ICANN with something else.  There can and should
be an open competition and a new debate about how the
Internet should be managed.  The GA asked for an
international privatized approach that addresses the need
for Internet stability, but they also insisted on a system
that protects innovation, competition and freedom.   These
last values are the ones that the current ICANN board has
ignored."    James Love, Dirctor, CPTech



Full Text of motion 1

Motion 1. "Request that US DoC hold open competition
           for services now offered by ICANN"
------------------------------------------------------------

WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and
Numbers (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms
of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further
changes.

WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition
in the Internet community and go even further from the
original terms of reference.

WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S.
Department of Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN
Board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
by others for managing key Internet resources, while
providing for a public record of the process for enhanced
visibility.

WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name
Supporting Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC,
that in the Green and the White Paper, the Government of the
United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw from
management of the Domain name System (the DNS).


It is hereby RESOLVED that:-

The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting
Organization of Internet
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks 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. An open
competition should aim to achieve comprehensive
privatization and internationalization of DNS services,
consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom.

------------------------------------------------------------
Full text of Motion 2.
"Basic principles for the ICANN Reform Process"
------------------------------------------------------------

Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored by an
entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to gain the trust of the
Internet community,

Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into
policy-making, which must include meaningful individual  and non-commercial
participation, and accountability (including  independent review of
decisions),

Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away from
these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning processes for the
implementation of an independent review system and for participation of the
Internet community at large in ICANN oversight,

the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must adhere
to these principles in any reform proposal and make
it sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
these principles.   Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide
significant improvements in these regards, it is the international Internet
community's and governments' task to consider how all of or parts of ICANN's
responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one or more new or
existing organizations which are accountable to the international Internet
community as a whole, have clearly defined missions and are not only under
the sole control of a national department of commerce, without endangering
the stability of the DNS or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all
groups of the Internet community are called to deliver their input on
reforms needed.
------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


----- End forwarded message -----
--
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