[ga] Re: Text of the motion...

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-05-03 09:15:52 -0400, James Love wrote:

>Below was the text of the motion.  There has been not a lot of 
>time, but a fair amount of debate.  

There has been a fair amount of debate on the process, but  
practically no such debate on the contents of your motion.  You  
could begin such a debate by actually responding to the comments I 
made earlier.  See below.

----- Forwarded message from James Love <james.love@cptech.org> -----

From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>,
	"General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 11:31:14 -0400
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas,

I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am asking for a
vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this issue.      The GA
doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it can let people know what
its members (not only its chair) think.   I am asking for a vote.  We can
address what is on the ballot if we can agree that there will be a vote.

Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Cc: "Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>; "General assembly list" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract


> On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on
> >whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
> >competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale
> >for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
> >intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> >changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
> >community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
> >alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet
> >resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."
>
> _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.  Such a vote of no confidence
> would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask
> for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> you, James.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>

----- End forwarded message -----


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