[ga] Does-Not-Exist reports vote and debate

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

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

      The GA Vote: Lies, damned lies, and numbers.
      Fri May 24 11:59:45 CEST 2002
      The DNSO's General Assembly has voted on two motions. The first one,
calling for a re-bid (termed "open competition") of ICANN functions received
148 votes in favor, 54 against, and 15 abstentions. The second one,
emphasizing core principles for ICANN evolution and reform, received 164
votes in favor, 33 against, and 19 abstentions.

      What does all this mean? Most importantly, the GA voting registry's
members (more precisely: 75% of those who decided to participate in the
vote) insist in ICANN respecting the fundamental principles, including
transparent process, broad input into policy-making, which must include
meaningful individual and non-commercial participation, and accountability
(including independent review of decisions) (quoted from motion two).
Second, 67.9% of those who participated in the vote also seem to be close to
giving up on the current reform process, and hope that an open competition
aiminng to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of
DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
competition and freedom (quoted from motion one) could help.

      That's all - there's not much more to this vote: It's not a statement
of the DNSO constituencies' consensus. It's not binding to anyone, neither
to the Names Council, nor to the board, nor to the DoC.

      Now, what kind of news does that create on ICANNwatch? Editor Ted
Byfield posts an item titled "DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid
ICANN's Gig". In that item, he does not even mention that two motions
existed. Now, that's Internet journalism at its best, don't you think?

      CPTech's James Love, the proponent of the original "re-bid" motion, at
least gives a full account of the facts in this message to his random-bits
mailing list - if you look closely enough. Because, of course, the motion
which drew less votes in favor (he ridiculously calls it the "nuclear
option" - bad enough, it's a firecracker at best) is "the most important
vote".





--
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