Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
Thomas would feel a little bit more comfortable with a certain amount of
discussion on the proposal to re-bid the ICANN contracts before he decides
whether a ballot should be prepared. He is your elected Chair, and his
request for some preliminary dialogue is not unreasonable. As a Chair he
must assess whether their is sufficient interest and support in any given
proposition to merit calling for an Assembly-wide vote. As I have seconded
Jamie's motion, I don't mind offering some thoughts on the topic.
We all accept the principle of competition (as noted in the White Paper)
because we all tend to believe that competition is healthy. It would be
quite healthy for the future of DNS management/coordination to allow
competing groups to each offer up plans to NTIA for evaluation. If ICANN has
the best plan for attending to the concerns enumerated in our current
Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Commerce, then ICANN will
get the nod. If some other entity offers a better mousetrap, then they will
get the go-ahead.
Our MoU is set to expire in September. A great many of our assigned tasks
have not be accomplished. It seems to me that ICANN management does not
intend to complete several of the assigned tasks. Stuart has made it clear
that the Board does not intend to allow for an external review of Board
decisions by a neutral third party as the MoU requires. Neither does ICANN
intend to allow for appropriate membership mechanisms as required by the MoU
(they plan to remain a corporation without members). You can kiss goodbye to
all hope of having the ICANN Independent Review process (another MoU
requirement), and the realistic chances of honoring the MoU and arriving at
stable agreements with the organizations operating country-code top level
domains is next to nil.
Let's give others the chance to bid on the contracts. How much worse of a
job could some other NTIA-approved entity do? Thomas considers such an
action the equivalent of a vote of no confidence in the Board. So be it. At
the moment there is not much that inspires confidence in the Board. They
have killed At-Large elections, and this General Assembly will be next on the
chopping block. Sure, there's a place for the constituencies in Stuart's
proposed forums, but the GA is dead meat and appears nowhere within current
ICANN reform plans.
Let's send a very very clear message... what we want is nothing less than
that which was promised, an ICANN with nine elected At-Large directors, a
Board whose job is only to ratify policy (not to make it), and an
organization with all necessary checks and balances in place... and since we
aren't going to get this with this current management in place, let's send a
signal that it's time to throw the bums out. Requesting a re-bid of the
ICANN contracts is a totally appropriate course of action to take.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html