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

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

Those looking to see what alternative structures were considered during
the original bid process should investigate the submissions made by BWG
and ORSC.


Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
> 
>          1. I agree with Jamie's proposal.  We don't know, at this point,
> what sort of structure a rebid might generate.  But I believe that a rebid
> is more likely to generate a good structure than is the Committee on ICANN
> Evolution and Reform.  The issue presented by the proposal is not what
> ICANN's new structure should be, but rather which *forum* should be
> deciding how to address ICANN's self-acknowledged crisis.  I trust the
> rebid process to generate a workable structure much more than I trust the
> Board.
> 
>          2. That said, Thomas is right about process.  I say this as
> somebody who has been a member of this list, and participating in its
> processes, since before we called it the ga list (back when it was
> discuss@dnso.org).  The proposal is on the table.  People who support it
> should not only say so; they should say *why*.  People who don't support it
> should not only say so; they should say *why*.  People should respond to
> each other's arguments.  When the discussion has come to rest, we can have
> a vote; alternatively, it may be appropriate to have a vote even before
> we've entirely come to rest, so that we can have a timely voice in events
> going on outside of us.  But that decision, in the first instance, belongs
> to Thomas.  Right now, the job of proponents of the proposal is to explain
> why it's a good idea; Michael and Jamie have begun this.  The more people
> do this, the stronger will be the indication that a vote would show rough
> consensus.  If opponents of the proposal set out cogent analyses of why
> it's a bad idea, proponents can respond.  Discussion can go on so long as
> it appears to be useful.  If almost nobody posts such analyses in
> opposition, the discussion will be short.
> 
> Jon
> 
> At 09:53 AM 5/3/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:
> 
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
> >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.
> >
> > > _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.)
> >
> >    In fact, I am asking for a vote of no confidence.  I will point out that
> >people asked for a vote of no confidence in the ICANN board after Accra, and
> >you would not permit such a vote.   This isn't the old Soviet Union.  We
> >should be allowed to record votes in opposition, not only in support of the
> >leadership.
> >
> > >
> > > 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_.
> >
> >       Thank you, but no thanks.  The board has already eliminated the at
> >large elections and failed to implement the independent review.   IMO, those
> >are radical changes.   All we have left are these non-binding straw polls,
> >and we can't even get those from the GA.
> >
> > >
> > > 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.)
> > >
> >
> >         See above.
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> >             There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about a rebid.  The
> >comments by the numbering entities, the comments by the Chair of the IETF,
> >and widespread opposition to the Lynn proposal are things that would have
> >more currency in a competitive rebid, than within the insular ICANN
> >Committee on Reform Process.    I have met with DoC twice about this,
> >including yesterday.  I think that DoC is committed to a solution that has
> >global sharing of DNS management, and is aware of many civil society
> >concerns about the Lynn proposal.  Of course, if there is change, it is
> >possible that anything can happen.  Some people, including the board, don't
> >like elections, because they don't know who will win.  Same is true in a
> >recompete..... you don't know for sure going in.    I personally think a
> >rebid would spur the ICANN board to be more responsive to their critics, to
> >win the rebid.  I think also that non-profits should be permitted to fail.
> >
> >  However, at the end of the day, this is a controversial topic.   Some
> >persons probably want ICANN as it is, or the Lynn proposal, or are extremely
> >risk averse.  In a vote, people can vote yes or no.    But look, if the GA
> >won't allow votes like this, lets just be clear about that too.   It will be
> >one more avenue for expression of popular will that ICANN has closed off.
> >And for what reason?  I would actually be surprised if a majority of GA
> >members supported a rebid.  Many of the GA members probably consider
> >themselves ICANN insiders, prefer to deal with the devil they know, or just
> >don't like the US Department of Commerce.
> >
> >   Jamie
> >
> >  --------------------------------
> >James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> >http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >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
> 
> --
> 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
--
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