Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1152
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Friday, May 3 2002             Volume 01 : Number 1152

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 11:39:31 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

- --------------020304090801070200040304
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

James Love wrote:

>Thomas,
>
>I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am asking for a
>vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this issue.      The GA
>doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it can let people know what
>its members (not only its chair) think.   I am asking for a vote.  We can
>address what is on the ballot if we can agree that there will be a vote.
>

Which is roughly how Best Practices works. See 
http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm, which
is presently drafted for the context of icaanatlarge.com.

Bill Lovell

>
>
>Jamie
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
>To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
>Cc: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:25 AM
>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>
>>On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:
>>
>>>"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on
>>>whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open
>>>competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale
>>>for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the
>>>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further
>>>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet
>>>community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
>>>alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet
>>>resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."
>>>
>>_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.)
>>
>>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_.
>>
>>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.)
>>
>>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.
>>
>>--
>>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --------------020304090801070200040304
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<html>
<head>
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
James Love wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
  <pre wrap="">Thomas,<br><br>I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am asking for a<br>vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this issue.      The GA<br>doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it can let people know what<br>its members (not only its chair) think.   I am asking for a vote.  We can<br>address what is on the ballot if we can agree that there will be a vote.</pre>
  </blockquote>
  <br>
Which is roughly how Best Practices works. See <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm">http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm</a>,
which<br>
is presently drafted for the context of icaanatlarge.com.<br>
  <br>
Bill Lovell<br>
  <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:[email-masked]">
    <pre wrap=""><br><br>Jamie<br><br><br>----- Original Message -----<br>From: "Thomas Roessler" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>To: "James Love" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>Cc: "Joanna Lane" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a>; "General assembly list" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email-masked]">&lt;[email-masked]&gt;</a><br>Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:25 AM<br>Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract<br><br><br></pre>
    <blockquote type="cite">
      <pre wrap="">On 2002-05-02 10:29:43 -0400, James Love wrote:<br><br></pre>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">"I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on<br>whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open<br>competition for the services now provided by ICANN.  The rationale<br>for asking for a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the<br>intitial terms of refence for ICANN, and is proposing even further<br>changes, which have met extensive opposition in the Internet<br>community.  The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider<br>alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet<br>resources. The vote should be taken within 10 days."<br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap="">_Suggesting_ radical changes is one thing, _adopting_ them is an<br>entirely different thing.  In particular, calling for a re-bid at<br>this point of time would amount to a vote of no confidence in the<br>entire ICANN structure as we know it.  Such a vote of no confidence<br>would most likely remove the GA's (small) possibilities to influence<br>the process in any reasonable manner.  (To draw the parallel: The GA<br>would be - legitimately! - shocked if it was dissolved for<br>_suggesting_ radical changes, such as a re-bid.)<br><br>If you insist on such a vote, I'd suggest that the vote should ask<br>for a rebid under the condition that ICANN actually moves to _adopt_<br>radical changes which seem inconsistent with the white paper's<br>_fundamental_ _principles_.<br><br>There are two possible ways of implementing this.  Either, such a<br>vote could be held now, and explicitly list the principles the GA<br>wants to see preserved.  Or, the vote could be h
eld when ICANN<br>actually crosses the Rubicon.  (Some will, of course, argue that it<br>already has done so.)<br><br>There is one more thing one should keep in mind: There is no<br>guarantee that the winner of a re-bid would be better than the<br>current, or a reformed, ICANN.  I'd suggest that the GA doesn't ask<br>for a re-bid unless it has reason to believe that such a re-bid<br>would actually lead to an improvement.  Giving such reasons is up to<br>you, James.<br><br>--<br>Thomas Roessler                          <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://log.does-not-exist.org/">http://log.does-not-exist.org/</a><br><br><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <pre wrap=""><!----><br><br>--<br>This message was passed to you via the <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> list.<br>Send mail to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:[email-masked]">[email-masked]</a> to unsubscribe<br>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).<br>Archives at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a><br><br><br></pre>
        </blockquote>
        <br>
        </body>
        </html>

- --------------020304090801070200040304--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 21:07:39 +0200
From: "DNSO Secretariat" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] NC teleconference May 2, 2002  MP3 recording

[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]
[To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]]

The MP3 recording of the Names Council teleconference is now available at:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/mp3/20020502.NCteleconf.mp3

Happy listening!

DNSO Secretariat

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 23:47:15 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: Challenge

Danny,

thanks for expressing your distrust so openly.

The "data" you request are on the Committee website. Further, I have
personally asked for other providers of input, like this GA, to make their
positions known publicly there. That way, any panel you convene will have
the same input that we do. I hope they have all the other ingredients it
takes.

Yours,

Alejandro Pisanty

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
     Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
*
** 10 Aniversario de Internet Society - www.inet2002.org en Washington, DC
- ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
 Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .

On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Alejandro,
>
> By making particular mention in your Interim Report of the Heathrow
> Declaration (which in my view is neither an extensive nor in-depth proposal
> and only parrots the Lynn Plan), and by citing the Amsterdam meeting which
> went exhaustively into a fresh analysis of S. Lynn’s reform proposal, you are
> creating the impression that the Board Committee on Evolution and Reform will
> once again be renamed to the ICANN Board Committee to Implement the Lynn Plan.
>
> Your recent comments in the last Names Council teleconference tend to add to
> this perception.  My concern is whether a Committee that is solely populated
> by Board members can *objectively* prepare any recommendations that are not
> in keeping with the already tendered proposals of your fellow Board member
> and CEO, Stuart Lynn.
>
> I would be willing to bet that an Independant Panel looking at the very same
> raw input that your Committee has received might well come up with a
> different set of viable recommendations.  In the spirit of fairness and for
> the sake of guaranteed objectivity, would you be willing to allow another
> Panel to review the same data, and to issue it's own independent conclusions
> for consideration by the ICANN Board?
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 15:13:43 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas,
The GA has never officially adopted a set of rules for how things work, so I
suggest that whatever you and others perceive is simply institutional memory
and clearly yours is different from Jamie's.

Furthermore, of course one person can write a motion, and in fact, most
motions are authored by a single proponent of a cause. I suggest that what
you are meaning to say is that one person cannot decide on whether or not an
issue has a sufficient level of interest to go forward for a vote, and that
in order to clarify the level of support, a certain amount of debate is
required. That may be the case here, or it may not, since some issues are so
obvious they do not need to be debated before a vote, while other issues do
require debate, but nevertheless would benefit from a snap poll of the
membership to indicate the level of interest in pursuing a particular course
of action at all.

There are also various forms of voting. In this particular case, I happen to
agree with Jamie that it would be useful to know at this stage the level of
support for the redelegation of the ICANN function to another entity, or the
like. Some things are so obvious, they don't need discussion. There has been
a great deal of discussion on the lists dating back years about ICANN's
competence or lack thereof, culminating in the disastrous Lynn Reform Plan.
Do we really need to rehash all that? Or could a reasonable person have
arrived at the conclusion that such a vote is necessary? There are literally
thousands of comments criticizing ICANN's competence that could be used the
basis for a motion to proceed now, and Jamie, as the Proponent, could draft
it.

However, if you object, a deadline of 10 days has been suggested to
determine how the GA feels about this issue. I'm assuming the deadline is to
meet ICANN's own requirements for feedback, so this would be the time-line
into which all debate, motion amendments, alternative motions and actual
voting would have to occur.

I know I am repeatedly beating the same drum, but the Best Practices
Procedures is the most helpful guide to how to move this issue forward, it
covers all of this in some detail and is posted on the DNSO GA Website. An
updated version is posted here:-
http://www.cerebalaw.com/BPIial.htm.

I notice my colleague Bill Lovell has also picked up the thread and pointed
you in the same direction.

Following Best Practices is not hard work, it's just based in logic, and a
flexible system to boot. Use what you want from it, set aside what you don't
need. If you don't do anything else, at least please read the definitions
sections, so when you next use the word "vote", each of you will know
whether to clarify it as a formal DNSO ballot, or a Snap Poll.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Thomas
> Roessler
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 1:40 PM
> To: James Love
> Cc: Joanna Lane; General assembly list
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>
> On 2002-05-02 11:31:14 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >I don't mind you having any opinion you want on this.  But I am
> >asking for a vote, to estabish how the GA members feel about this
> >issue.  The GA doesn't have the power to force decisions, but it
> >can let people know what its members (not only its chair) think.
> >I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if
> >we can agree that there will be a vote.
>
> You seem to be seriously mistaken about how things work.
>
> First, you produce a reasonable motion.  You don't do this alone,
> but you do this by way of discussion on this very list. Second, you
> try to generate substantial support.  Third, you get the vote.
>
> You are just about to begin with step one of this process.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 07:12:04 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On Thu, 2 May 2002 17:25:31 +0200, Thomas Roessler
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>_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.  

Indeed.

>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_.

>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.)

The Board has already adopted the two biggest changes - abolishing at
large seats on the board and abolishing the independent review
process.  

>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.  

There are no guarantees in life but I think people have learnt a lot
from the ICANN experiment and any successor may be different
organisations for different functions.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 22:27:15 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2002-05-02 11:34:23 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

>James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish how the GA  
>members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of  
>query that simple polls are designed to answer, and they need no 
>formal sequence of steps to get established.

James Love, more recently, also wrote this:

>I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if  
>we can agree that there will be a vote.

That doesn't sound like a request for a simple _poll_ to me.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:54:14 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Its so sad that the people we elect to the Chair end up being ICANN
apologists/co-conspirators or simply are the have-no-guts "Lets go
slow" types/

We dont need to go slow - we need radical reform. ICANN should be
disbanded and DoC should reassign the responsibilties to someone
who will honor their MoU.

I call for an immediate vote on the resolution now on the table.

If  this doesn't happen, I demand Tom's resignation. We need
leadership that doesn't cower in front of the ICANN corruption.

John

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
"General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> On 2002-05-02 11:34:23 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish how the GA
> >members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of
> >query that simple polls are designed to answer, and they need no
> >formal sequence of steps to get established.
>
> James Love, more recently, also wrote this:
>
> >I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if
> >we can agree that there will be a vote.
>
> That doesn't sound like a request for a simple _poll_ to me.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 17:20:47 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I sense that a vote of the Assembly does not need further debate since the
issue is a simple one and self-explanatory, only the wording of the Motion
needs to be agreed. If James could post a clean copy of his proposed wording
to this list, we can discuss possible amendments, if any, then move forward
to request the Chair recognize the Motion and request a formal ballot be
conducted by the DNSO Secretariat.

Regards,
Joanna

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of John
> Palmer
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:54 PM
> To: Ga
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>
> Its so sad that the people we elect to the Chair end up being ICANN
> apologists/co-conspirators or simply are the have-no-guts "Lets go
> slow" types/
>
> We dont need to go slow - we need radical reform. ICANN should be
> disbanded and DoC should reassign the responsibilties to someone
> who will honor their MoU.
>
> I call for an immediate vote on the resolution now on the table.
>
> If  this doesn't happen, I demand Tom's resignation. We need
> leadership that doesn't cower in front of the ICANN corruption.
>
> John
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
> "General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 3:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract
>
>
> > On 2002-05-02 11:34:23 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> > >James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish how the GA
> > >members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of
> > >query that simple polls are designed to answer, and they need no
> > >formal sequence of steps to get established.
> >
> > James Love, more recently, also wrote this:
> >
> > >I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if
> > >we can agree that there will be a vote.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like a request for a simple _poll_ to me.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 23:38:47 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2002-05-02 15:54:14 -0500, John Palmer wrote:

>I demand Tom's resignation.

Fine with me. Show me substantial support for _that_, and I'll  
happily ask the secretariat to set up an election for a new chair.   
It's that simple.  Motion, support, vote.

However, as long as you don't get substantial support for your  
demand, I'd suggest that you do one of two things with respect to  
Jamie's request for a vote: (1) shut up, or (2) help to get a  
constructive motion onto the table which finds reasonable support of 
the membership of the GA, and expresses the GA membership's concerns 
in an adequate manner.

Tertium non datur.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 16:44:21 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I have no intention of shutting up. I am just sick and tired
of my mailbox being filled up daily with this nonsensical
drivel that gets us nowhere. Someone makes a substantial
motion, and I support it. You on the other hand, want to
step in its way. Thats what this is about. As far as I'm
concerned, the motion on the table is constructive.

ICANN is a corrupt monopoly that is controlled by people
who have NO intention of allowing any real and substantive
changes to take place since they have vested interests in
leaving it as is. 

To think that anything we do here will make a difference is 
naive. The best that we can do is collectivly ask DoC to
save the Namspace by terminating ICANN and moving
on to something else. 

I second Mr. Love's motion and demand a vote. 

John

- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ga" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:38 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> On 2002-05-02 15:54:14 -0500, John Palmer wrote:
> 
> >I demand Tom's resignation.
> 
> Fine with me. Show me substantial support for _that_, and I'll  
> happily ask the secretariat to set up an election for a new chair.   
> It's that simple.  Motion, support, vote.
> 
> However, as long as you don't get substantial support for your  
> demand, I'd suggest that you do one of two things with respect to  
> Jamie's request for a vote: (1) shut up, or (2) help to get a  
> constructive motion onto the table which finds reasonable support of 
> the membership of the GA, and expresses the GA membership's concerns 
> in an adequate manner.
> 
> Tertium non datur.
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> 

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 23:51:44 +0200
From: "jeanette hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2 May 2002, at 15:54, John Palmer wrote:

> Its so sad that the people we elect to the Chair end up being ICANN
> apologists/co-conspirators or simply are the have-no-guts "Lets go
> slow" types/

While do support Jamie's call for a poll on a rebit of ICANN, I don't 
see the problem with Thomas' call for due process. The 
significance and impact of polls depend on the support by those 
who are expected to vote. I find it only reasonable to ask the GA 
whether its members actually want to vote on a motion. 

Jeanette

> We dont need to go slow - we need radical reform. ICANN should be
> disbanded and DoC should reassign the responsibilties to someone who
> will honor their MoU.
> 
> I call for an immediate vote on the resolution now on the table.
> 
> If  this doesn't happen, I demand Tom's resignation. We need
> leadership that doesn't cower in front of the ICANN corruption.
> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
> To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
> Cc: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane"
> <[email-masked]>; "General assembly list" <[email-masked]> Sent: Thursday,
> May 02, 2002 3:27 PM Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on
> rebid of ICANN contract
> 
> 
> > On 2002-05-02 11:34:23 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
> >
> > >James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish how the GA
> > >members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of
> > >query that simple polls are designed to answer, and they need no
> > >formal sequence of steps to get established.
> >
> > James Love, more recently, also wrote this:
> >
> > >I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if we
> > >can agree that there will be a vote.
> >
> > That doesn't sound like a request for a simple _poll_ to me.
> >
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler                         
> > http://log.does-not-exist.org/ -- This message was passed to you via
> > the [email-masked] list. Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 17:54:06 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas, I am asking for a vote, a poll of whatever you want to call it.
And if you are not going to permit such a vote, just say so.  I think we all
know what this is about, and people can vote however they like.  It will
have zero legal effect, but it will be informative.  It will give the GA
members a voice.   I don't care what your personal views are on the merits
of the proposal I would like voted on. You can vote for or against it.  But
I would like a vote.  If you have all of the authority to allow this or not
allow it, then make whatever decision you like.  I was disappointed that
earlier you did not allow a vote on the non-confidence in the board motion.
What votes have you ever allowed?

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "James Love" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
"General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> On 2002-05-02 11:34:23 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
>
> >James Love is seeking, in his words, "to establish how the GA
> >members feel about the issue," which is precisely the kind of
> >query that simple polls are designed to answer, and they need no
> >formal sequence of steps to get established.
>
> James Love, more recently, also wrote this:
>
> >I am asking for a vote.  We can address what is on the ballot if
> >we can agree that there will be a vote.
>
> That doesn't sound like a request for a simple _poll_ to me.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:34:36 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

jeanette hofmann wrote:

>On 2 May 2002, at 15:54, John Palmer wrote:
>
>>Its so sad that the people we elect to the Chair end up being ICANN
>>apologists/co-conspirators or simply are the have-no-guts "Lets go
>>slow" types/
>>
>
>While do support Jamie's call for a poll on a rebit of ICANN, I don't 
>see the problem with Thomas' call for due process. The 
>significance and impact of polls depend on the support by those 
>who are expected to vote. I find it only reasonable to ask the GA 
>whether its members actually want to vote on a motion. 
>
My sentiments exactly.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 00:54:57 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On 2002-05-02 17:54:06 -0400, James Love wrote:

>It will give the GA members a voice.  I don't care what your  
>personal views are on the merits of the proposal I would like  
>voted on. 

Likewise, I don't care what your personal views are on what the GA  
should vote on.

That said, could we please return to dialogue mode, and try to get a 
motion onto the table which would enable the GA to make a  
_constructive_ contribution?  If you want help and suggestions for  
this, please refer to my original reply to your motion.  If you  
don't want that help, that's your problem.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 19:45:50 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Thomas, you have already expressed views on the issue, which is fine.  Now
what exactly does one have to do to get a vote out of the GA?      I made a
motion.....   do I have to make lots of motions?   Is there a form the
motion has to follow?   Is there some special acarne rule I have to follow
to ask this body to express its views on a pretty simple issue?   You
offered to help....  ok.  Help me do this is a way that gets us to an
anctual vote on rebidding the DOC agreements with ICANN.   Is there some
magic number of seconds I need to get a vote?  Is everyone just making this
up as they go along?

Jamie

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
To: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>; "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>;
"General assembly list" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 6:54 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> On 2002-05-02 17:54:06 -0400, James Love wrote:
>
> >It will give the GA members a voice.  I don't care what your
> >personal views are on the merits of the proposal I would like
> >voted on.
>
> Likewise, I don't care what your personal views are on what the GA
> should vote on.
>
> That said, could we please return to dialogue mode, and try to get a
> motion onto the table which would enable the GA to make a
> _constructive_ contribution?  If you want help and suggestions for
> this, please refer to my original reply to your motion.  If you
> don't want that help, that's your problem.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 11:46:12 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA proceedures

On 23:56 1/05/02 -0400, James Love said:
>1.  What does it take to get a vote from the GA?

The co-operation of the DNSO secretariat, where the voters' roll is held.

- --Joop

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:14:29 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- --Boundary_(ID_zt1iL/ABINf/1BWv9RZ3XA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE  BELOW.

Mr. James Love, a member in good standing  of the DNSO's General Assembly,
has made a call for action, specifically stating:

 "I move that the GA poll its members, to record its views on whether or not
the US Department of Commerce should have an open competition for the
services now provided by ICANN. The rationale for asking for a rebid is that
ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and
is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive opposition in
the Internet community. The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider
alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet resources.

The vote should be taken within 10 days."

Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger.

Members who have indicated their agreement with taking a Vote:-

  1.. James Love (Proponent)
  2.. John Palmer (Second)
  3.. Danny Younger (Second)
  4.. Jeanette Hoffman
  5.. Joanna Lane
  6.. Sotiris Sotiropoulos
  7.. Karl Auerbach
  8.. .
  9.. .
  10..

Members who have indicated their disagreement with taking a Vote:-
  1..
  2..
  3..

- --Boundary_(ID_zt1iL/ABINf/1BWv9RZ3XA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE></TITLE>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2715.400" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<P><FONT size=2>PLEASE INDICATE YOUR PREFERENCE&nbsp; BELOW. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Mr. James Love,&nbsp;a member in good standing&nbsp;&nbsp;of the 
DNSO's General Assembly, has&nbsp;made a&nbsp;call for action, specifically 
stating:</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>&nbsp;<STRONG>"I move that the GA poll its members, to record 
its views on whether or not the US Department of Commerce should have an open 
competition for the services now provided by ICANN. The rationale for asking for 
a rebid is that ICANN has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference 
for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes, which have met extensive 
opposition in the Internet community. The rebid would allow the NTIA to consider 
alternatives to the current ICANN plan for managing key Internet 
resources.</STRONG></P>
<P><STRONG>The vote should be taken within 10 days."</STRONG></P></FONT>
<P><FONT size=2>Seconds: John Palmer, Danny Younger. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><U>Members&nbsp;who have indicated their 
</U><U><STRONG>agreement with&nbsp;taking a Vote</STRONG>:-</U> </FONT></P>
<OL>
  <LI><FONT size=2>James Love (Proponent)</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>John Palmer (Second)</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>Danny Younger (Second)</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>Jeanette Hoffman</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>Joanna Lane</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>Sotiris Sotiropoulos</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>Karl Auerbach</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>.</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2>.</FONT> 
  <LI><FONT size=2></FONT></LI></OL>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><U>Members&nbsp;who have&nbsp;indicated their<STRONG> 
disagreement with taking a Vote</STRONG>:-</U> </FONT></DIV>
<OL>
  <LI><FONT size=2></FONT>
  <LI><FONT size=2></FONT>
  <LI><FONT size=2></FONT></LI></OL></BODY></HTML>

- --Boundary_(ID_zt1iL/ABINf/1BWv9RZ3XA)--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1152
*************************