Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Sorry Jamie, but I don't agree with you. We can carry on negotiating with
the ICANN leadership on reform, because that's the political and pragmatic
reality anyway, but what the GA should do is determine WITH CLARITY its
democratic will and opinion, and present THAT to ICANN, DoC and the press as
a clear resolution.

We need to vote between the two motions to clarify the real preference of
voters (which will prove to be Motion 1).

Then you can negotiate and reason all you like along the lines of Motion 2,
but at least ICANN is confronted with a democratic and outright demand for a
re-bid as the majority view, which shows a much clearer expression of the
strength of contempt for the status quo.

My comments on your post are interspersed beneath:

----- Original Message -----
From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 1:35 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote


> Richard, I don't think this is necessary.

Jamie, it's necessary (if people care enough about the truth) because
there's no public clarity about what the results mean. You think that the
two motions can somehow co-exist. Others (including myself) see the motions
as signifying different things.
Motion 1 calls for a re-bid without compromise. (I agree with this because
the ICANN leadership have proved untrustworthy and you shouldn't appease
people like this. There is an absolute case for a Re-Bid, and presumably you
think so too or why did you vote for one?)
Motion 2 delays a re-bid and allows ICANN the chance to reform itself.

The reason a clarifying vote is necessary, is because the way the two
motions were put together caused confusion, as is demonstrated by our
divergent interpretations of what the vote meant.

I believe the majority of people only voted for Motion 2 as a second-best to
Motion 1. If that is the case, the majority should have the right to confirm
that in a clarifying vote where they choose between the two.

I don't believe the majority want a consensus on this. I believe they want
what they voted for : a re-bid. Why should anyone be afraid of a clarifying
vote and the will of the majority?

I believe the majority actually regard "consensus" on this issue as
inadequate. It's giving a chance to people who have already been given too
many chances. But if you disagree, let a vote clarify this fact.

What we have here is a classic ICANN "fudge". ICANN uses consensus as a
management tool, to blur issues, and evade clearcut criticism and
resolutions of those who threaten their power-base.

   Both motions passed by large
> margins.

Motion 2 only passed by a large margin because people were prepared to
accommodate it as a second best. If you disagree with this claim, let a vote
prove you right. I request a clarifying vote.

> They were similiar, but there were a few significant differences.
> People who really didn't like Motion 1 and liked Motion 2 can take comfort
> in the fact that Motion 2 got a higher vote total.

That's exactly the false premiss I would like to clear up.
Just let people choose between the two Motions in a choice to show which the
GA majority really prefers. Most people who voted for an outright re-bid
would not have voted for Motion 2 except as a second-best option.

  I voted for both, and
> don't think there is any purpose in undermining either result.

Saying you would prefer a Re-Bid to a compromise approach is NOT undermining
Motion 2. It's probably just stating the truth. We should not "fudge" and
"blur" when dealing with dissemblers. We should be precise.

   Both
> commanded large majorities, and the results speak for themselves.

No, no, no. People are trying to say that Motion 2 was more popular. My
proposed vote would show that this was not the case. The ICANN leadership
(and the public) should be given a clear and precise message that the call
for a Re-Bid is the GA's primary and most popular desire.

The introduction of Motion 2 destroyed the clarity of that message, and
undermined the authority of Motion 1.



> People
> can make what they want of the results, just like they do with regard to
> other elections, such as the at large election results.  If we are going
to
> have new votes, they should be about issues where the GA needs to express
> its views.

The outright condemnation of the ICANN leadership and a call for a Re-Bid
seems like a view worth expressing.

  I think one basic area concerns the issue of how the ICANN board
> of directors is elected.  Others may have some other priorities.  The
reform
> process is rolling along.  Motion 2 asks us to provide input to the reform
> process, so we should do that too.

Well that's undermined Motion 1, hasn't it?
Don't you see, your own motion (1) was the most desired motion, and instead
you try to negotiate. Political reality, probably yes. But don't let them
wriggle out of an absolute statement of the democratic will and opinion of
the GA! We should be showing the strength of the GA's contempt for the
status quo. Motion 2 just waters down that contempt by making the re-bid
seem secondary, and accommodating some trust in ICANN to reform itself.

The ICANN leadership does not deserve that trust.

Richard

>
>    Jamie
>


--
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