ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


This note by James Love I believe to respond effectively to Roberto's well conceived objections, and also to those from such as William X. Walsh who objects that the vote would have the effect of a General Assembly suicide. As to the latter, if the vote failed, the GA would still be there; if it succeeded, the GA would still be there until such time that the DoC took up the matter and actually made a re-bid and another "NewCo" would be installed.  Under this last scenario, the effort would then be to ensure, at all times leading up to the making of the rebid proposal, that whoever might become such a "NewCo," it would have to have in its Charter the recognition of some subsidiary body that had at least as much authority as the GA has had. I need hardly add that that would not be hard to do, so that would be a gain. "What's in a name?"

Under the former scenario, the vote would have failed.  What appears to have been accomplished already, however, is that people are paying attention.  New people are signing on to ga@dnso.org, I'm told, in droves.  These people may be either (a) common Internet folks who have been lurking, but never jumped in to register as voters before because they never saw the ga doing much, or similar such reasons; or (b) hacks under the control of the moneyed commercial interests who are trying to pack the voter lists, about which some trepidation has already been expressed. If the latter is the case, the vote would fail.  It would not be hard to figure out whether (a) or (b) was the case, but if it were the latter, that in itself would be a plus in the sense that it would show that the ICANN BoD is running scared -- something that X number of years of activity in ga@dnso.org has never before accomplished.

The effort itself, as explained by James Love, alsoanswers the oft-repeated complaint by Danny Younger that so-and-so people have not responded to the ICANN request for comments on its reform proposals.  This effort is that response -- it says that ICANN needs to be replaced; and that is a well-considered alternative
that is in the process of being chewed over mightily.

As to "adult supervision," I take that to refer to the acceptance by the Chair of a Motion that would then be passed on to the DNSO Secretariat for a formal vote under DNSO procedures.  I believe that one consequence of that has been a time limit on debate set by the Chair in order to meet the ICANN schedule. Since this whole thing got started by James Love, and then Joanna Lane carried us through a poll from which we emerged more or less in one piece, I see no reason why the process might not continue in that vein.  James Love re-submits his motion (or asks Joanna to count his previous submission as being such), and others who might have other ways of wording such a Motion (e.g., a Proposal) would be free to submit their notions, and out of that would ultimately come one or more final Motions that respectable numbers of us could agree on. Whatever Motion or alternative Motions survived would then be voted on, and would survive or not.  Since the issue of a re-bid is tantamount to a vote of non-confidence in ICANN, the several proposals referred to in this growing document would not be germane, any more than the re-bid effort would be germane to the formal "Reform" process being carried out by ICANN, so the vote on this rebid effort need not result in any forwarding through the Chair to the DNSO Secretariat for yet another vote, although that might well be done.

Assume, then, the scenario in which there resulted an overwhelming vote in favor of a rebid, but under two different sets of conditions.  One of which is, the results of this initial infomal vote are announced before ICANN announces its intent as to this or that plan, and may be presumed to be still considering the matter.  Such a result
might (hah!) cause ICANN to do a bit of rethinking. A subsequent announcement by ICANN could either grant some degree of authority to an At-Large, or it might toss it either further into the pit. The former would be some small accomplishment, while the latter would provide yet further evidence to take before the DoC (and various Congress critters, etc.), as the political process so begun continues.

Another scenario is that the final, informal vote does not appear until after ICANN has announced its intent. How the two compare would again amount either to some small victory, or the battle goes on.  On the other hand, under the unlikely scenario in which ICANN announces a structure under which ordinary citizens of the Internet have at least as many rights as those being proposed for the prospective citizens of the State of Palestine, the battle would have been fought and won, and perhaps no rebid would be necessary.

These scenarios include an unspoken (until now) premise that it does not matter whether whatever might come out of this arrives before or after ICANN"s deadline.
The ICANN statement says that communications received after its deadline will not likely be given the same weight as those received before.  My answer to that is:
zero times whatever is still zero -- after this long history, the idea that ICANN would in any event give any weight at all to various proposals coming out of the GA is quite beyond the pale. What it will take note of is competition, as was so properly noted below.

What's important about democracy is not the result, but the process. One would hope that with sufficient time for debate -- and I'm sure Joanna Lane would be willing to continue as an informal time line operator and the like if the process is continued, and would set whatever time line people seemed to demand -- there would be ample opportunity for everyone to weigh in, and a fully informed electorate would then be able to vote as their consciences may dictate.

(But a note to lurkers: if you care about any of this, and think that ICANN is other than what its PR says it is, then register to vote and let your thoughts be known.)

Bill Lovell

James Love wrote:
02fa01c1f610$1c5cfbd0$5fc75c8b@essential.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









<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>