Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Some have celebrated the fact that the GA was at last able to carry
out a vote with some kind of a result,
which only reminds me that a truly starving person will celebrate the discovery
of roadkill.  The ongoing 
discussion of a "clarifying vote" only adds more evidence, were any more
necessary, that the GA is quite
incapable of  carrying out any such vote, and for the same usual reasons:
those who have some kind of stake
in the outcome will mess with the voting process right up to the last minute,
either with new amendments,
new wording, new motions, or whatever might work to discredit whatever might
come out of the "vote."
In this recent "vote," Thomas Roessler and Alexander Svensson could not have
done a better job of
confusing the issue if they had been on the ICANN payroll to do just that.

The General Assembly will never overcome this hurdle unless it is willing,
finally, to adopt a  fixed process
for carrying out on line democratic processes for reaching consensus, specifically
the Best Practices (BP)
process put together by Joanna Lane and myself.  Also essential to that process
is the administration of the
process by a "moderator" (under whatever name) who, under the BP rules, 
cannot be a proponent of 
whatever motion is then to be addressed, nor can that person "lobby" for
or against the same.  Fact is,
though, the denizens of the GA would all rather expound their views, dream
up hifalutin' new theories of
"internet governance," and whack away at each other than do any real substantive
work so that GA issues 
can advance to real conclusions.

It was from quite a few years of watching with astonishment the amatuerish
"playing at democracy" that
has always been going on within the GA that some time last summer I set out
to design a process that
would avoid all that.  Happily, I was joined in that process by Joanna Lane,
who is one of the smartest
people I know and who knows a lot more about the mechanics of the Internet
than I do, and we came
up with an adaptation for the Internet of a system which, according to all
of the references we have been 
able to find, has a long history of proven success.  As the old saying goes,
though, the GA would "rather
fight than switch," so after these many years I don't really see much hope
for the GA.  There being no GA or
ICANN (whose track record, of course, is even worse) that is capable of providing
anything approaching
Internet governance (except in the case of ICANN, in its own interest) was
the reason why  I was so glad 
to see James Love's motion, before its effectivenes was so diluted by Thomas
Roessler and Alexander 
Svensson.

If James Love wants to try again (and even I would go for a second try),
I would recommend that his 
motion be run again by itself, using the Best Practices processes under the
guidance of  Joanna Lane, 
who, whatever may have been any positions on matters that she might have
stated, has a level of 
objective honesty and of strict protocol that matches her general quality
of thought. Precisely that 
process had in fact been begun by Joanna, until it was sabotaged by Thomas
Roessler, who, using his 
authority as "Chair," first refused to accept the James Love motion, then
chastized Joanna for posting 
"unofficial" counts of poll votes, and then finally cobbled up with Alexander
Svensson the cause of
all the confusion.

This would necessarily yield results only after ICANN's current upcoming
cocktail party, but so what?
Who thinks it will even look at the results of that last exercise of the
GA on which some "clarification"
seems to be desired? 

There are lot more people on the net who read what goes on in ga@dnso.org
than are ever heard from.

Bill Lovell

James Love wrote:
> 00c501c205cc$5ed96d10$0b00a8c0@essential.org">
> The "truth" is there were two motions, with relatively similar content, and
> both passed.   Most people, including, myself,  voted for both.  One is
> basically directed to DoC, and one is directed at the ICANN BOD reform
> process.  In my opinion, you pretty much have to address both bodies.
> People can and will make what they want of this or any other vote.  You can
> vote the same issues as many times as you want.  Apparently you now want the
> type of  A vrs B that was rejected before the vote, in favor of the more
> simple, yes or no on each motion.  But with the next ICANN board meeting a
> few weeks away, and almost zero bottom up statement on the fundamental issue
> of how the board is going to be elected, it would seem to me to be much more
> important to focus now on the issue of board selection.
>
>   Jamie
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
> To: <ga@dnso.org>
> Cc: <james.love@cptech.org>; <jo-uk@rcn.com>
> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 3:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote
>
>
> : 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 di
> dn'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
> refor
> m
> : > 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@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
>
>
>