Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

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

The "truth" is there were two motions, with relatively similar content, and
both passed.   Most people, including, myself,  voted for both.  One is
basically directed to DoC, and one is directed at the ICANN BOD reform
process.  In my opinion, you pretty much have to address both bodies.
People can and will make what they want of this or any other vote.  You can
vote the same issues as many times as you want.  Apparently you now want the
type of  A vrs B that was rejected before the vote, in favor of the more
simple, yes or no on each motion.  But with the next ICANN board meeting a
few weeks away, and almost zero bottom up statement on the fundamental issue
of how the board is going to be elected, it would seem to me to be much more
important to focus now on the issue of board selection.

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Cc: <james.love@cptech.org>; <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote


: Sorry Jamie, but I don't agree with you. We can carry on negotiating with
: the ICANN leadership on reform, because that's the political and pragmatic
: reality anyway, but what the GA should do is determine WITH CLARITY its
: democratic will and opinion, and present THAT to ICANN, DoC and the press
as
: a clear resolution.
:
: We need to vote between the two motions to clarify the real preference of
: voters (which will prove to be Motion 1).
:
: Then you can negotiate and reason all you like along the lines of Motion
2,
: but at least ICANN is confronted with a democratic and outright demand for
a
: re-bid as the majority view, which shows a much clearer expression of the
: strength of contempt for the status quo.
:
: My comments on your post are interspersed beneath:
:
: ----- Original Message -----
: From: James Love <james.love@cptech.org>
: To: Richard Henderson <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
: Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 1:35 AM
: Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote
:
:
: > Richard, I don't think this is necessary.
:
: Jamie, it's necessary (if people care enough about the truth) because
: there's no public clarity about what the results mean. You think that the
: two motions can somehow co-exist. Others (including myself) see the
motions
: as signifying different things.
: Motion 1 calls for a re-bid without compromise. (I agree with this because
: the ICANN leadership have proved untrustworthy and you shouldn't appease
: people like this. There is an absolute case for a Re-Bid, and presumably
you
: think so too or why did you vote for one?)
: Motion 2 delays a re-bid and allows ICANN the chance to reform itself.
:
: The reason a clarifying vote is necessary, is because the way the two
: motions were put together caused confusion, as is demonstrated by our
: divergent interpretations of what the vote meant.
:
: I believe the majority of people only voted for Motion 2 as a second-best
to
: Motion 1. If that is the case, the majority should have the right to
confirm
: that in a clarifying vote where they choose between the two.
:
: I don't believe the majority want a consensus on this. I believe they want
: what they voted for : a re-bid. Why should anyone be afraid of a
clarifying
: vote and the will of the majority?
:
: I believe the majority actually regard "consensus" on this issue as
: inadequate. It's giving a chance to people who have already been given too
: many chances. But if you disagree, let a vote clarify this fact.
:
: What we have here is a classic ICANN "fudge". ICANN uses consensus as a
: management tool, to blur issues, and evade clearcut criticism and
: resolutions of those who threaten their power-base.
:
:    Both motions passed by large
: > margins.
:
: Motion 2 only passed by a large margin because people were prepared to
: accommodate it as a second best. If you disagree with this claim, let a
vote
: prove you right. I request a clarifying vote.
:
: > They were similiar, but there were a few significant differences.
: > People who really didn't like Motion 1 and liked Motion 2 can take
comfort
: > in the fact that Motion 2 got a higher vote total.
:
: That's exactly the false premiss I would like to clear up.
: Just let people choose between the two Motions in a choice to show which
the
: GA majority really prefers. Most people who voted for an outright re-bid
: would not have voted for Motion 2 except as a second-best option.
:
:   I voted for both, and
: > don't think there is any purpose in undermining either result.
:
: Saying you would prefer a Re-Bid to a compromise approach is NOT
undermining
: Motion 2. It's probably just stating the truth. We should not "fudge" and
: "blur" when dealing with dissemblers. We should be precise.
:
:    Both
: > commanded large majorities, and the results speak for themselves.
:
: No, no, no. People are trying to say that Motion 2 was more popular. My
: proposed vote would show that this was not the case. The ICANN leadership
: (and the public) should be given a clear and precise message that the call
: for a Re-Bid is the GA's primary and most popular desire.
:
: The introduction of Motion 2 destroyed the clarity of that message, and
: undermined the authority of Motion 1.
:
:
:
: > People
: > can make what they want of the results, just like they do with regard to
: > other elections, such as the at large election results.  If we are going
: to
: > have new votes, they should be about issues where the GA needs to
express
: > its views.
:
: The outright condemnation of the ICANN leadership and a call for a Re-Bid
: seems like a view worth expressing.
:
:   I think one basic area concerns the issue of how the ICANN board
: > of directors is elected.  Others may have some other priorities.  The
: reform
: > process is rolling along.  Motion 2 asks us to provide input to the
reform
: > process, so we should do that too.
:
: Well that's undermined Motion 1, hasn't it?
: Don't you see, your own motion (1) was the most desired motion, and
instead
: you try to negotiate. Political reality, probably yes. But don't let them
: wriggle out of an absolute statement of the democratic will and opinion of
: the GA! We should be showing the strength of the GA's contempt for the
: status quo. Motion 2 just waters down that contempt by making the re-bid
: seem secondary, and accommodating some trust in ICANN to reform itself.
:
: The ICANN leadership does not deserve that trust.
:
: Richard
:
: >
: >    Jamie
: >
:
:
:

--
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