RE: [ga] Behaviour and rights

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

Joanna Lane wrote:
>
>Roberto,
>People have a right to speak.

Of course they do.
They have the right to speak, but also the right to decide to say things 
that can be:
- relevant
- irrelevant
- counterproductive
That they decide to say irrelevant and/or counterproductive things does not 
diminish their right to speak, of course.


>The goal is not to replace ICANN per se, but
>to ask the people for whose benefit it exists to let their will be known, 
>in
>much the same way that any government must subject itself to a vote of the
>people every 4 or so years in order to stay in power.

Obviously yes.
But a vote changes the people in place in the government, not the type of 
government itself.
You vote every 4 years or so to replace the people in 
congress/senate/chamber/government/whatever_your_local_reality_is, not if 
the shape of the 
congress/senate/chamber/government/whatever_your_local_reality_is has to be 
changed. The latter can be done, of course, but it implies rewriting the 
rules of the game and it happens at much wider intervals.
And in fact people on the ICANN Board are subject to change (with the 
notable exception of the the 4 Boardsquatters, that most of us agree is a 
shame).


>Nobody is saying that
>ICANN could not be re-elected to serve another term, but it has no 
>automatic
>right to that extension, and by its own policies, admits a failure to
>deliver on its promises so far. Those whom ICANN has failed most are
>currently represented within the process by the GA, hence it has a right to
>hear about all the alternatives that may be available, not just those
>dictated by ICANN itself. For goodness sake, let the Vote proceed.

Absolutely correct. But this is, to translate an untranslateable Italian 
expression, "the ox who claims that the donkey has horns".
Not only I never said that the vote should not proceed (on the contrary, I 
spoke against the "motion of order"), but I am exactly one of the few who 
sais, contrary to you, that we should discuss "about all the alternatives 
that may be available", not just to rebid.
Let's assume for a moment that our "confidence vote" will be taken into 
account, what will replace the current ICANN? Either we are foolish not to 
have thought about it beforehand, or we do have a hidden agenda, and we are 
already lobbying US Congress for the alternate solution, and that, of 
course, without discussing this in the "open and transparent" process that 
we think ICANN should apply, but we are not bound to.


>The worst
>that can happen is that ICANN will have to run a re-election campaign and
>answer some tough questions. To do otherwise is to uphold the concept of a
>dictatorship.

Re-election campaign? Has there been an election campaign in first place? I 
must have missed it. I thought that the decision had been taken by USG with 
consultation with whom they chose to consult, and taken into account the 
opinions of those who they chose to listen.
And ICANN is the result.

You mean that, supposing we will have a rebid, this time USG will run an 
"open and transparent process", ending up with a vote of all stakeholders 
based on the principle "one person - one vote" to choose among the bidders? 
Wow!

Regards
Roberto
(keeping forgetting that there's a difference between geese and ganders)


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

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html