Re: [ga] Motion for a vote of no confidence in the Board

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

David:

What you're perhaps saying is to re-institute the process by which
ICANN became "NewCorp," starting with a new list of candidates
that would not include ICANN.  I could go for that -- I've always
harbored the suspicion that the designation of ICANN was fixed
to begin with. One mechanism might would be a Letter of Inquiry
or the like to the DOC.  A proposal so to do could be added as a
part of the "nonconfidence" motion now being proposed. If that
were done, some viable candidates who would be interested
should go back and review the acceptance criteria.  (It might also
be suggested that in any contract with DOC, there should be
penalty clauses to be applied at any time the entity acting did
not abide by the other contract requirements, since ICANN has
violated possibly most of them with impunity.)

For those who do not like the notion of the nonconfidence vote,
generation of the above Letter of Inquiry proposal instead would
get the message across, while at the same time show a way to go
forward. If the DOC says that it has this contract with ICANN
(and flying off the handle here without having the contract in front
of me at the moment), a reasonable reply would be that the
contract could be declared broken for ICANN's breach thereof,
based on its performance.

I am a lawyer, but the foregoing is NOT legal advice -- it is
merely suggestions from one concerned about the future of
the Internet.

Bill Lovell

David Farrar wrote:

> Mike Roberts wrote:
> > At 7:01 PM +0100 3/19/02, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > >I do agree on the clear message part, but I do not at this point of
> > >time agree that a (declaratory) "vote of no confidence" is the best
> > >way to proceed.  I hope that we can find more constructive ways of
> > >expressing ourselves.
> >
> > Yes, indeed.  One of the first tenets of management is, "tell me your
> > solutions, not your problems."
> >
> > The people and organizations who have the political power to alter
> > the course of ICANN's future are all too familiar with the litany of
> > problems, real and imagined.  What they want to know is what
> > constructive solutions the ICANN community has to offer.  Firing the
> > Board is not among them.
>
> I regrettably disagree.  ICANN is a mess and the buck stops with the Board.
>
> I have tried to be what I perceive as a "moderate" voice.  Obviously unhappy
> with the status quo but also trying to work constructively within the system.
> Have pledged money and time to the at large.  Have worked as part of the
> Structure Taskforce.  Have encouraged my local ccTLD to keep attending and
> funding ICANN.  Have tried to be constructive on issues etc.
>
> However I no longer believe ICANN is redeemable.  For years I have said ICANN
> is not perfect but we need some central co-ordinating body and ICANN is the
> only game in town.  This is no longer the case.  I am detecting a seismic shift
> in the internet landscape which equates to the internet community no longer has
> confidence in ICANN either present or future.
>
> Therefore my constructive solution is to remove the naming and addressing
> authority from ICANN and learn from the mistakes of ICANN to set up a sucessor
> body or bodies.
>
> DPF
>
> --
> 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@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