<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)
There are truths that are not merely mathematical. There are lies that
are.
--
Marc@Schneiders.ORG
http://www.bijt.net/
On Fri, 24 May 2002, at 11:59 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> 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@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
>
--
Marc@Schneiders.ORG
http://www.bijt.net/
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|