Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

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

DPF wrote:
> I believe that any future influence would be so small and 
> insignificant that the preferred course is to get DOC to rebid the 
> contract.  ICANN have miserably failed to meet the MOU so why should 
> they get to keep the job?

Let's make sure that I actually understand what you are saying here: 
  The GA's influence is currently minimal, there is no chance that this 
could get better  in a future ICANN, so we can just as well  commit 
collective public harakiri?

Because, quite frankly, that's what the kind of resolution which Jamie 
has been proposing would mean.  I want that everyone here is clear about 
this:  If this General Assembly passes, by vote, a declaration that just 
suggests a re-bid of ICANN functions, then this GA has expressed its 
distrust in the ICANN structures, of which it is part.  As a corollary, 
the GA would sign its own certificate of death by passing the resolution 
Jamie has proposed.  Bad enough, that certificate of death would most 
likely also be valid in a reformed ICANN - i.e., in the case that there 
is no rebid, despite the hopes some here may have.

Do you folks want that?  More importantly, is the GA even the right 
place to declare ICANN process bankrupt?  Jamie:  Why do you want that 
this resolution is passed by the GA?  Why don't you try to make your 
points by channels outside the ICANN structure, if you believe that this 
structure is so flawed that it should not be reformed, but abandoned?


In particular, this means that the resolution suggested by Jamie is 
entirely inappropriate if we want to exercise any influence on the 
reform process, or if we want to make a statement on that process.  Do 
we want to remind the ICANN community of some of the basic principles? 
  Then we should do just that, without the harakiri part.  We should 
clearly state the principles we are talking about.  We may even say that 
we believe there should be a re-bid of ICANN functions if these 
principles are not appropriately respected by ICANN's reform process. 
  But, in this case, we should not declare that we are giving up on ICANN 
process now.




-- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <roessler@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