Re: Truths (Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.)

[eric@hi-tek.com]

I personally am well pleased with the turn out and implications of a fairly well run global internet vote
on an important subject. There was no capture. The split vote actually turned out ok.

The really cool thing is that we put it on the table and I believe that over twenty nations voted.
Gentlewoman that is not perfection but it is huge progress.

Our goals have been reasonably met.  There is a resemblance of Netizen public opinion, and that is very
good.

You participants are the finest of the finest that set policy on the Net.  I believe you have done well.

Thank you all who voted.

Sincerely,
Eric

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> There are truths that are not merely mathematical. There are lies that
> are.
>
> --
> Marc@Schneiders.ORG
>
> http://www.bijt.net/
>
> On Fri, 24 May 2002, at 11:59 [=GMT+0200], Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
> > Note how the motion which drew fewer "yes" votes is promoted as the
> > "most important" one in James Love's message to random-bits.
> > ICANNwatch editor Ted Byfield even goes a step further: In his
> > ICANNwatch piece at
> > <http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=759>, he does not even
> > mention motion 2.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded message from James Love <james.love@cptech.org> -----
> >
> > From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> > To: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss@icann-ncc.org>
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 05:41:19 -0400
> > Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote
> > List-Id: Discussion List of Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency  <discuss.icann-ncc.org>
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
> > To: <random-bits@lists.essential.org>
> > Cc: <reform-comments@icann.org>
> > Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:12 AM
> > Subject: CPTech on vote to rebid ICANN contracts
> >
> >    [Note: CPTech statement on vote follows
> >     summary of Motion 1]
> >
> > It isn't that common for an organization to vote to give
> > others a chance to replace it, but that is what the ICANN
> > DNSO "General Assembly" did yesterday.  The vote was
> > controversial within ICANN, generating hundreds of missives
> > to the GA discussion list, and resulting in the highest GA
> > vote tally ever recorded (218 voters), and the highest rate
> > of online voter participation (37.2 percent of registered
> > voters) since the GA was created two years ago.
> > (http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b12.fullrecord.html)
> >
> > The most important vote was "Motion 1," the so-called
> > "nuclear option," which called upon the US Department of
> > Commerce to rebid its contracts with ICANN.  The vote on
> > this motion was:
> >
> >                148 I FOR Motion 1 ("Request to US DoC")
> >                 54 I vote AGAINST Motion 1
> >                 15 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 1
> >
> > A similar but somewhat more restrained motion 2 which
> > criticized the ICANN board and its reform process also
> > passed:
> >
> >                164 I vote FOR Motion 2 ("Reform principles")
> >                 33 I vote AGAINST Motion 2
> >                 19 I ABSTAIN regarding Motion 2
> >
> >
> > Here is the guts of Motion 1:
> >
> > "The Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers
> > (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of
> > reference for ICANN, and . . . these proposed changes have
> > met extensive opposition in the Internet community . . .
> > a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of
> > Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal
> > for restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for
> > managing key Internet resources. . . The General Assembly of
> > the Domain name Supporting Organization of Internet
> > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the
> > US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
> > the services now provided by ICANN, , provided that the new
> > competition would address the need to develop an
> > international framework for DNS management . . .
> > privatization and internationalization of DNS services,
> > consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> > competition and freedom."
> >
> >
> > CPTech statement of the GA vote,
> >
> > "It is clear that the ICANN Board of Directors does not have
> > the support of the Internet community, and now it is
> > official that they do not have the support of their own
> > public forum, and the only consensus that exists is to
> > reject the ICANN board's proposed "reforms" for ICANN, and
> > start over.   The ICANN board is rapidly dismantling every
> > vehicle for democracy within ICANN, and this vote reminds
> > everyone why.  The ICANN board and staff is seeking to
> > impose an unpopular governance system on the Internet, and
> > the only way they can do that is to suppress avenues for
> > recording popular will.  The US Department of Commerce has
> > to confront a painful fact, ICANN is not working, not
> > listening, and not willing to heal itself.  There should be
> > consequences for failures, and even non-profit organizations
> > should face competition.  If ICANN can't tolerate elections
> > for its board members, and isn't willing to limit its own
> > powers in any meaningful way, it's time to think about
> > replacing ICANN with something else.  There can and should
> > be an open competition and a new debate about how the
> > Internet should be managed.  The GA asked for an
> > international privatized approach that addresses the need
> > for Internet stability, but they also insisted on a system
> > that protects innovation, competition and freedom.   These
> > last values are the ones that the current ICANN board has
> > ignored."    James Love, Dirctor, CPTech
> >
> >
> >
> > Full Text of motion 1
> >
> > Motion 1. "Request that US DoC hold open competition
> >            for services now offered by ICANN"
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and
> > Numbers (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms
> > of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further
> > changes.
> >
> > WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition
> > in the Internet community and go even further from the
> > original terms of reference.
> >
> > WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S.
> > Department of Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN
> > Board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered
> > by others for managing key Internet resources, while
> > providing for a public record of the process for enhanced
> > visibility.
> >
> > WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain name
> > Supporting Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC,
> > that in the Green and the White Paper, the Government of the
> > United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw from
> > management of the Domain name System (the DNS).
> >
> >
> > It is hereby RESOLVED that:-
> >
> > The General Assembly of the Domain name Supporting
> > Organization of Internet
> > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the
> > US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for
> > the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new
> > competition would address the need to develop an
> > international framework for DNS management. An open
> > competition should aim to achieve comprehensive
> > privatization and internationalization of DNS services,
> > consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation,
> > competition and freedom.
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > Full text of Motion 2.
> > "Basic principles for the ICANN Reform Process"
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Whereas there are certain basic principles which have to be honored by an
> > entity coordinating key Internet resources in order to gain the trust of the
> > Internet community,
> >
> > Whereas these principles include transparent process, broad input into
> > policy-making, which must include meaningful individual  and non-commercial
> > participation, and accountability (including  independent review of
> > decisions),
> >
> > Whereas there is a widespread perception that ICANN is moving away from
> > these principles, in particular by stalling or abandoning processes for the
> > implementation of an independent review system and for participation of the
> > Internet community at large in ICANN oversight,
> >
> > the General Assembly of the DNSO reminds the ICANN Board that it must adhere
> > to these principles in any reform proposal and make
> > it sufficiently known how proposed reforms provide improvements regarding
> > these principles.   Should the ICANN reform process fail to provide
> > significant improvements in these regards, it is the international Internet
> > community's and governments' task to consider how all of or parts of ICANN's
> > responsibilities could be transferred smoothly to one or more new or
> > existing organizations which are accountable to the international Internet
> > community as a whole, have clearly defined missions and are not only under
> > the sole control of a national department of commerce, without endangering
> > the stability of the DNS or the Internet as a whole. In the meantime, all
> > groups of the Internet community are called to deliver their input on
> > reforms needed.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> >
> >
> > ----- End forwarded message -----
> > --
> > 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
> >
>
> --
> Marc@Schneiders.ORG
>
> http://www.bijt.net/
>
> --
> 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

--
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