Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

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

I support the idea of working with Bret's draft, to see if we can have a
consensus position for the ICANN reform process, if this is the best
starting point.   I would add that we should not get hung up if we can't
agree on everything, and we if that is the case, we should search for basic
areas of agreement.    It would help if the leadership and some partisans of
the last vote can move forward, and do what it takes to get a consensus
position before the Bucharest meeting.  There isn't much time.

Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam PEAKE" <pja@glocom.ac.jp>
To: "James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>
Cc: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>; <fausett@lextext.com>;
<ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote


: Wait on the voting for a minute...
:
: Bret Fausett's put together a simple and I think very acceptable "Case
: for (Only Mild) Reform".
:
: Do we, the GA, agree with Bret's proposals? If not, why not? (And in
: that case what modifications do you propose?)
:
: Rather than voting on anything right now I suggest we see if the GA can
: come up with improvements to Bret's proposals. Once that simple task's
: done... we can vote them up or down.
:
: See
: <http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/24.html#a366> Cost-Effective,
: Trustworthy Global Election
:
: <http://www.lextext.com/icann/2002/05/23.html#a364> The Case for (Only
: Mild) Reform
:
: <http://www.lextext.com/bretsbylaws.html> Redline bylaws
:
: <http://www.lextext.com/bretsmission.html> Redline Mission Statement
:
: Most contentious issue for me is 6 vs. 9 for At Large representation.
: Spent a lot of time on this with NAIS (*I am now speaking for myself*)
: thinking about this and trying to defend 9, but now, I could accept 6.
: Particularly if the ccTLDs (as represented in Bret's model) were to
: ensure a fair voice for end users.
:
: At Large of 6, plus a Canadian CIRA-like system would be work for to me.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Adam
:
:
: James Love wrote:
: >
: > ----- Original Message -----
: > From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
: > : >We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus
: > : >positions on the issue of elections.
: > :
: > : New and intelligent arguments may have more impact than another vote
: > :  from the very GA which just asked for a re-bid.
: > :
: >
: >    Even old intelligent arguments are important.
:
:
: See NAIS and ALSC reports :-)
:
:
: > Evidence of what is the
: > consensus  is important, regardless of the novelty of the position.
Noise
: > on the GA list is interesting, I guess, but results of these votes can
be
: > much more important.   If there is a large supermajority view on the
issue
: > of how the board is elected, that would be significant, in Bucharest.
: >
: > Jamie
: >
: > PS.... Motion 2 also addressed the issue of a rebid, as you know.
: >
: > --------------------------------
: > James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
: > http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
: >
: > --
: > 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