Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

Roberto, I also liked much of the Hoffman and Alvestrand papers, and both of
them seemed to be at great variance with the Board and staff positions.  How
does one get from her to there (or somewhere similiar), in terms of where
ICANN is headed?  The rebid puts the DoC into the mix, and allows
alternatives such as the Hoffman or Alverstrand type proposals, to be really
considered as alternatives.     A rebid is a particular process of managing
change, leaving it up the ICANN board is another.  I don't think it is
realistic for us to reach an agreement on the particular alternative, right
now, but a demonstration of support for a rebid would be correctly taken as
a vote of no confidence in the current Staff/Board proposals.     I would
have greater confidence that the Hoffman/Alvestrand and similiar proposals
would be given consideration in a rebid environment, than without.  Also,
the ICANN board itself would have to address accountability issues more
seriously if facing competition.  We should at least entertain the notion
that non-profits can face consequences for their failures.    Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>
To: <wsl@cerebalaw.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 3:05 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Concerning the upcoming "rebid" vote


> William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >.... If you think ICANN has abided by the MOU and the
> >Green and White Papers, etc., you should probably oppose a rebid;
> >if you think ICANN has not, and has failed in its obligations, you
> >should favor one.
> >
>
> I am not sure I agree.
>
> I do believe that, in particular shooting itself in the foot at Accra in
> rejecting the AtLarge proposals of the Bilt committee (considering also
the
> huge effort that all parties have put in order to come to some basic
> consensus points), ICANN has shown that it has no intention to fulfil its
> obligations.
>
> The problem is "obligations with who". Does ICANN have obligations with
USG,
> or the Internet community? If it is the former, then the reasonment is
> correct: let's ask USG to turn the page.
> Let's go for a moment to the "other" decision that ICANN (and NC/DNSO,
> incidentally) has taken disregarding painfully obtained "community
> consensus". Somebody can spell "WG-C"?
> In several occasions I have claimed that this whole circus about ICANN
> started with two objectives:
> 1. introduce new TLDs (and not just 7, but "a lot of")
> 2. break NSI's monopoly
> Several years later, we have an ICANN that wishes to establish contracts
> will ccTLDs (that have operated well until now without any "adult
> supervision" by ICANN), but mysteriously fails to guarantee the separation
> of Registrar and Registry for .com (one of the necessary conditions for
fair
> competition).
> Only 7 TLDs have been introduced so far, and whoever has attended MdR
knows
> how (remember the motivation for changing .air to .airo?).
>
> What will bring a rebid now? I bet on a couple of years of delays, in
which
> for instance no new TLDs will be delegated. Well, "nihil sub sole novo",
as
> I have asserted way back in 1998 (CORE General Assembly in Washington, DC)
> that the continuation of the statu quo was the real purpose of the White
> Paper, hidden behind a mask of wider democracy. In summary, "change
> everything in order not to change anything" ("Il Gattopardo", famous book
of
> Tomasi di Lampedusa on the sicilian society of the 19th Century).
>
> What is the solution? I don't know. I have a lot of sympathy for Paul
> Hoffman's proposal
> (http://www.proper.com/ICANN-notes/dns-root-admin-reform.html, already
> posted but never referenced). I still have to digest the implications of
> some details, but as a whole I like it muuuuuch better than the one tabled
> for voting. Of course, it has the big disadvantage that it has to be read
> and unterstood, is not an easy slogan that can move the masses, in short,
it
> is more an IETF approach than a GA-DNSO approach, but in the end it will
pay
> because it proposes a reasonable basis of discussion for an alternative,
as
> opposed to the 77. Cavalry approach.
> May I also suggest another interesting text:
> http://www.alvestrand.no/icann/icann_reform.html. Different ideas, but the
> same effort: to define "what should be fixed", not "who has to fix it".
> IMHO, the only way to have the stakeholders heard.
>
> Let me also comment on the vote.
> On the timetable, I wholeheartedly agree with Thomas' approach: let's
> continue the discussion for few days. I honestly don't understand the
hurry
> in taking a vote without fully understanding the implications thereof.
> On the vote itself, I believe we are shooting ourselves in the foot by
> invoking adult supervision, but I also believe that if the GA is so
foolish
> to do it, it has all rights to do it. I belong to the category of people
> that does not want to punish suicide. And in this sense, the more
> last-minute voters we get, the quicker the death. Watch out, though, that
> this result in the GA will be shown as evidence by those who always
opposed
> the AtLarge to prove their point: individual users can be captured by a
well
> orchestrated campaign, and therefore the power should stay solidly under
> control.
> In other words, this will not only suicide GA, but kill hopes for
individual
> representation *ever*: even if the "contract" will be rebid, do you
*really*
> expect new_co (as it used to be called) not to be subject to pressure from
> commercial interests? With such nice example of flooding the (GA) voting
> registry with people that never debated the issue (in the GA), they will
> have a good point.
>
> In summary, most people on this list has several points of disagreement
with
> ICANN. This is the document to discuss and put forward. Let's define "what
> has to be fixed", propose it to ICANN BoD (maybe to NC), and go to a
motion
> of censure *if_the_answer_from_the_BoD_is_negative*.
> But let's define what we want, instead of saying "We don't know what we
> want, but anyway ICANN can't deliver - daddy, please kick them out!".
>
> Rewgards
> Roberto
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
>
> --
> 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