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

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

> >
> > >"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."

TR responded
> >
> > _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.)
> >

Lynn's plan already says radical changes are needed an coming.  It think
that it's too late to suggest that the door is not open to this.

The GA has no paricular influence within ICANN.  Well, none, actually.
There is no harm in also playing to outside constituencies, or to the
historical record.

> > 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_.
> >

Again, that's almost done.  And we know what the committee will do, more
or less.

> > 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.)
> >

Indeed.

> > 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

True

> > 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.

I think there are reasons to belive this. The first bid was held 'under
the radar'.  Everyone will be watching this time.

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
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