Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

[Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>]

         1. I agree with Jamie's proposal.  We don't know, at this point, 
what sort of structure a rebid might generate.  But I believe that a rebid 
is more likely to generate a good structure than is the Committee on ICANN 
Evolution and Reform.  The issue presented by the proposal is not what 
ICANN's new structure should be, but rather which *forum* should be 
deciding how to address ICANN's self-acknowledged crisis.  I trust the 
rebid process to generate a workable structure much more than I trust the 
Board.

         2. That said, Thomas is right about process.  I say this as 
somebody who has been a member of this list, and participating in its 
processes, since before we called it the ga list (back when it was 
discuss@dnso.org).  The proposal is on the table.  People who support it 
should not only say so; they should say *why*.  People who don't support it 
should not only say so; they should say *why*.  People should respond to 
each other's arguments.  When the discussion has come to rest, we can have 
a vote; alternatively, it may be appropriate to have a vote even before 
we've entirely come to rest, so that we can have a timely voice in events 
going on outside of us.  But that decision, in the first instance, belongs 
to Thomas.  Right now, the job of proponents of the proposal is to explain 
why it's a good idea; Michael and Jamie have begun this.  The more people 
do this, the stronger will be the indication that a vote would show rough 
consensus.  If opponents of the proposal set out cogent analyses of why 
it's a bad idea, proponents can respond.  Discussion can go on so long as 
it appears to be useful.  If almost nobody posts such analyses in 
opposition, the discussion will be short.

Jon



At 09:53 AM 5/3/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler@does-not-exist.org>
>There has been a fair amount of debate on the process, but
>practically no such debate on the contents of your motion.  You
>could begin such a debate by actually responding to the comments I
>made earlier.  See below.
>
> > _Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an
> > entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at
> > this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the
> > entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence
> > would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence
> > the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA
> > would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for
> > _suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)
>
>    In fact, I am asking for a vote of no confidence.  I will point out that
>people asked for a vote of no confidence in the ICANN board after Accra, and
>you would not permit such a vote.   This isn't the old Soviet Union.  We
>should be allowed to record votes in opposition, not only in support of the
>leadership.
>
> >
> > If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask
> > for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_
> > radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's
> > _fundamental_ _principles_.
>
>       Thank you, but no thanks.  The board has already eliminated the at
>large elections and failed to implement the independent review.   IMO, those
>are radical changes.   All we have left are these non-binding straw polls,
>and we can't even get those from the GA.
>
> >
> > There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a
> > vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA
> > wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be held when ICANN
> > actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it
> > already has done so.)
> >
>
>         See above.
>
>
> > There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no
> > guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the
> > current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask
> > for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid
> > would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to
> > you, James.
>
>             There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about a rebid.  The
>comments by the numbering entities, the comments by the Chair of the IETF,
>and widespread opposition to the Lynn proposal are things that would have
>more currency in a competitive rebid, than within the insular ICANN
>Committee on Reform Process.    I have met with DoC twice about this,
>including yesterday.  I think that DoC is committed to a solution that has
>global sharing of DNS management, and is aware of many civil society
>concerns about the Lynn proposal.  Of course, if there is change, it is
>possible that anything can happen.  Some people, including the board, don't
>like elections, because they don't know who will win.  Same is true in a
>recompete..... you don't know for sure going in.    I personally think a
>rebid would spur the ICANN board to be more responsive to their critics, to
>win the rebid.  I think also that non-profits should be permitted to fail.
>
>  However, at the end of the day, this is a controversial topic.   Some
>persons probably want ICANN as it is, or the Lynn proposal, or are extremely
>risk averse.  In a vote, people can vote yes or no.    But look, if the GA
>won't allow votes like this, lets just be clear about that too.   It will be
>one more avenue for expression of popular will that ICANN has closed off.
>And for what reason?  I would actually be surprised if a majority of GA
>members supported a rebid.  Many of the GA members probably consider
>themselves ICANN insiders, prefer to deal with the devil they know, or just
>don't like the US Department of Commerce.
>
>   Jamie
>
>  --------------------------------
>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@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