Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

Thomas, I have to say I find your statement here utterly unconvincing.  If
Lynn can say invite in governments, into a body that was desgined to (1)
"privatize" and "lessen the burdens of government" and (2) keep goverments
out of the net, then it seems anything we did here if fair enough.

On Fri, 3 May 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:

> Let's make sure that I actually understand what you are saying here: 
>   The GA's influence is currently minimal, there is no chance that this 
> could get better  in a future ICANN, so we can just as well  commit 
> collective public harakiri?

It is not harikiri.  It's using your limited weight to its best effect.
It's jujitsu.

> 
> Because, quite frankly, that's what the kind of resolution which Jamie 
> has been proposing would mean.  I want that everyone here is clear about 
> this:  If this General Assembly passes, by vote, a declaration that just 
> suggests a re-bid of ICANN functions, then this GA has expressed its 
> distrust in the ICANN structures, of which it is part.  As a corollary, 
> the GA would sign its own certificate of death by passing the resolution 

Not so.  We will have exactly the same influence after as before.  HOW
would that influenced be reduced?  Will the DNSO stop listenting to us?
(After it starts?)  By what right would it do that?  Is the rule we may
only say 'acceptable' things?  "DON'T say what they don't want to hear"?

> Jamie has proposed.  Bad enough, that certificate of death would most 
> likely also be valid in a reformed ICANN - i.e., in the case that there 
> is no rebid, despite the hopes some here may have.

There is no role for the GA in Lynn's plan.  Do you see any?  Why doesn't
that make it his harakiri?  Why didn't you call for his resignation?

> 
> Do you folks want that?  More importantly, is the GA even the right 
> place to declare ICANN process bankrupt?  Jamie:  Why do you want that 

Is there a wrong place?  Is participation in the structures such that it
means we can't call for reforms?

> this resolution is passed by the GA?  Why don't you try to make your 
> points by channels outside the ICANN structure, if you believe that this 
> structure is so flawed that it should not be reformed, but abandoned?

"You start where you are" - Saul Alinsky.  

How can some things be out of bounds for us, but NOTHING is out of bounds
for the staff?

> In particular, this means that the resolution suggested by Jamie is 
> entirely inappropriate if we want to exercise any influence on the 
> reform process, or if we want to make a statement on that process.  Do 

This is an assertion.  I don't understand the REASONING behind it. 

But never mind.  Suppose you are right: the resolution won't influence the
reform process.  So what?  There's more at stake; the process is deeply
rigged anyway -- any non-insiders on that committee?  

> we want to remind the ICANN community of some of the basic principles? 
>   Then we should do just that, without the harakiri part.  We should 
> clearly state the principles we are talking about.  We may even say that 
> we believe there should be a re-bid of ICANN functions if these 
> principles are not appropriately respected by ICANN's reform process. 
>   But, in this case, we should not declare that we are giving up on ICANN 
> process now.
> 

I personally came to believe there was almost no chance of purely internal
reform when the board squatters stayed on past their two years despite the
many promises they would go after one, maximum two. Until then, I thought
what we had was reasonable people disagreeing.  That move showed me it was
about power, and there was no honor.

You should not tie yourself into knots being oh-so-polite when everyone
else -everyone-else- is playing so rough.

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--

--
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