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

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

At 07.05.2002 19:05, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>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.

100% agreement, also with the assumption that the GA has the right to 
commit suicide.

Another point which some people seem to completely ignore is that
the *problems* and the *major actors* will not simply change in
any different setting -- neither in the Lynn proposal nor any 
other proposal. Do you really think that the Intellectual Property
lobby (whether a DNSO constituency, a "forum" or any other form)
would happily stand by if hundreds of new TLDs were added to the root? 
That does of course not mean that we have to obey to their wishes,
but we have to be realistic about what we *can* change.
In private mail, I have already told Jamie that I think the chances
of a rebid are zero, but even *if* the DoC chose to rebid the
contract, it's hard to see how this GA vote will not be (ab)used
to demonstrate exactly why the At Large is such a bad idea.

>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!".

Unfortunately, Jamie's resolution has captured everyone's attention
for days now. Privately, people have told me that they think it
is "a silly diversion", "not constructive"  and "distract[ing] so 
much attention from more important issues". But if you speak out,
you risk being tarred and feathered as supporter of Stuart Lynn's 
reform proposal. It is frankly frustrating.

Best regards,
/// Alexander

--
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