[ga] Behaviour and rights

["Roberto Gaetano" <ploki_xyz@hotmail.com>]

(I changed the subject because Bill Lowell is right, it has little to do 
with point of order, I am adressing the substance of the vote)

Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>Roberto, you seem to imply that if individuals only behaved properly, the
>board would eventually grant them the rights originally provided in the 
>bylaws.


I am not sure from where you get this impression. I apologize if my opinion 
was not clear, let me summarize in bullet points.

- Individuals have the right to participate (i.e. "yes to Individual 
Constituency", "yes to AtLarge", etc.) - I have been always active on these 
fronts, and I donīt think my position can be mistaken.

- Shame on NC and ICANN BoD for trying not to grant individuals the right of 
participation, with whatever lame excuse. Yes to put all our effort in 
trying to change their attitude.

- By voting a motion that addresses the rebid in a shape of "confidence 
vote" to ICANN, without pointing out what needs to be fixed, the GA is 
providing the rope to be hung with (or whatever you say in English), because 
it will give breath to those who say "See? They can only protest, not 
propose". An attitude like "ICANN has not fulfilled A, B, C, D, ... Z, 
*therefore* we ask these points to be fixed, or otherwise we must come to 
the conclusion that ICANN has to be replaced" will be far more 
politically-wise, and in the end will even gather more support. I am 
surprised that an experienced politician like Jamie has overlooked this.

- A simple "letīs rebid the agreement", although will have ample echo on 
ICANNwatch and will be reported by Judith Oppenheimer, will be completely 
ignored by USG (for the reasons in the point above, plus others detailed in 
my previous message). ICANN BoD will also ignore it, I disagree with those 
who claim that they will take any punitive action, because is not worthed to 
make waves: they know that USG... (see above).

- By trying to "stuff the ballot box" at the last minute, we prove that this 
can be a tactic that pays. Incidentally, we also prove that this tactic can 
be used for AtLarge as well (hence we are also giving ammunition to the 
critics of AtLarge, Sotiris, I thought it was obvious).

- The Chair should not try to stop the vote (oooops, sorry, this *really* is 
point of order). It will be counterproductive, and will put him on the same 
footing of the proposers of the motion, giving the clear impression to the 
outside that what matters is the result of a vote, not the ideas on the 
floor. While this can be important in a parliament that has to pass 
legislation, it is irrelevant in a consensus-run body. For instance, the 
IETF does not attempt to approve standards with majority votes (with or 
without stuffed ballot boxes).


Once again, we have the usual dilemma: shall we try to build something, or 
shall we cry our discontent the loudest possible?
Iīm for the former. If the GA is for the latter, there are other sandboxes 
in town.

Regards
Roberto


_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com

--
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