<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
On Thu, 2 May 2002 17:25:31 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote:
>_Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
>entirely different thing. In particular, calling for a re-bid at
>this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
>entire ICANN structure as we know it.
Indeed.
>If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
>for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
>radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
>_fundamental_ _principles_.
>There are two possible ways of implementing this. Either, such a
>vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
>wants to see preserved. Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
>actually crosses the Rubicon. (Some will, of course, argue that it
>already has done so.)
The Board has already adopted the two biggest changes - abolishing at
large seats on the board and abolishing the independent review
process.
>There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
>guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
>current, or a reformed, ICANN.
There are no guarantees in life but I think people have learnt a lot
from the ICANN experiment and any successor may be different
organisations for different functions.
DPF
--
david@farrar.com
ICQ 29964527
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|