Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1159
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Saturday, May 4 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1159

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

Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 09:21:37 -0500
From: "John Palmer" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> 
> To make this crystal clear, these are the options available:
> 
>  - follow process
>  - shut up
>  - continue with the present waste of time and ressources
>  - impeach me
> 
> Options 1 and 4 are the only ones which may lead to a vote. 
> 
>

I'm liking option 4 much more every day.

- --
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 10:59:01 -0400
From: "James Love" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

I accept Joanna's proposed timeline.

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joanna Lane" <[email-masked]>
To: "Thomas Roessler" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "GA List" <[email-masked]>; "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 10:15 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

> > 1. Idea for a motion.  Discussion of that idea, drafting of a _real_
> > motion.
> >
> > 2. Support.  (May have been demonstrated during the discussion.)
> >
> > 3. Vote.
>
> The only area of contention that I can see is the Timeframe over which
those
> procedures take place, hence I submitted a proposal for a Time Line Guide.
>
> > As I said before, a lot of times: You are at the beginning of step
> > one now.  Please start discussion on the substance of the motion.
> > Don't do straw polls at this point of time, don't demand votes at
> > this point of time.
>
> Here we disagree. Speedy, informal polls on the list can be helpful and
> revealing. The one currently underway has value by uncovering a sense of
the
> "hurry up" vote, which is the kiss of death to any Motion. Equally, to
agree
> last minute amendments and so on. Since Jamie has now suggested an
extended
> voting period would be acceptable, I have Revised the Time Line Guide and
> submit a second DRAFT here for discussion purposes, essentially offering
> more debating time and a later vote. If you don't like it, please alter
> freely, but please can we just agree the timeframe in which it could go
> ahead and provide a useful result, then at least we are all standing on
the
> same playing field and knowing what's going on.
>
> Thanks,
> Joanna
>
> P.S. Sorry this is a Word document, but it's not clear in plain text.
>

- --
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 17:38:59 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Comments on policy development recommendations

On recommendation 18: Individual registrants are lacking as one of the 
stakeholder groups in this recommendation.  While they are not 
represented in the present DNSO, this is certainly not a reason not to 
include them in recommendations for a future, improved ICANN. 
  Representation of individual registrants' interests could either happen 
by creating a constituency consisting of existing consumer advocacy 
groups (if you want, take the IPC as a model), or by creating a 
constituency which actually tries to get individual registrants into the 
game.

Rec. 19: The Council should provide clear guidance whose decision the 
addition of new stakeholder groups should be.  In particular, it seems 
questionable to me whether this decision should be left to existing 
stakeholder groups who may perceive new stakeholders being added to the 
structure as a danger for their own base of power and influence.

Rec. 22.  I'd like to see the council make a much clearer recommendation 
on who should participate in such groups.  In particular, participation 
should be possible for interested groups which operate outside the 
constituency structure, but have a clear stake.

Rec. 24.  Interim policy will only remain "interim" if its validity is 
limited in time.  I'd suggest that the council recommends that interim 
policy shall not be applied for more than half a year, and that there 
should be no more than two conecutive interim policies for any 
particular area of policy-making.

Finally, one thing I'm missing in the recommendations is a General 
Assembly.  Of course, there are a number of roles one could imagine for 
a GA.  I suppose, however, that there are at least two functions any GA 
could realistically fulfill:  1. Serve as a channel by which individuals 
and parties not fitting into the constituency scheme can still 
participate in policy-making.  2. Provide a forum for broad 
inter-constituency exchange. Of course, the GA can only operate as such 
a forum when constituencies are actually interested in using it.

For these reasons alone, the GA should neither be eliminated in the NC's 
recommendations, nor should it be ignored.  Instead, the council should 
recommend that a GA should continue to exist in the gTLD policy-making 
body; the GA's chairman should, ex officio, be a member of the Council 
outlined in rec. 20; the GA should be entitled to send representatives 
to the task forces outlined in rec. 22.

Many  of the members of the GA will, most likely, also call for a 
generally stronger involvement of the GA in the policy-making process.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
- --
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 09:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Hello,

I think the proposed vote is an interesting one, however it leaves open
the question "What happens next?" It's easy to point out problems, but
much harder to create solutions and make the tough decisions to create
an alternative to the status quo. I'd be curious to know what folks
things will happen if ICANN is disbanded...

As an aside, there have been a lot of emails in my INBOX today, and
some folks might want to watch that they observe the 5 posts/day limit,
and the 10K per message rule (although that's not a hard limit; I've
gone over 10K once or twice, when there was a long thought involved or
when replying to numerous messages in a single message, instead of in
10 separate ones). Also, with regards to attachments -- can folks try
to stick to ASCII text where possible, or LINK to standards-conforming
HTML posted on a website if something is too big?? MS Word .doc or RTF
or PDF aren't really standards per se, and in the case of MS Word .doc
files, there's the potential for viruses being circulated, if one isn't
careful about scanning each file, or if there is a new variant of a
virus that doesn't have a signature yet in one's virus scanner
software. I've not seen an ASCII virus :) plus the file size becomes a
lot smaller when it's plain text.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
- --
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 13:22:37 -0700
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Procedure (was Re: [ga] Text of the motion...)

James Love wrote:
> 
> Below was the text of the motion. ... 

> It is not clear to me how a member of the GA can get a vote.  As a matter
> of principle, I don't think I should have to persuade the Chair of the GA
> that a measure should pass before it is voted on.

You don't. What we all have to do is discuss it until there is at a
minimum something quite close to consensus -- a proposal that clearly
has quite broad support. A vote may be a good way to confirm that we
have reached that point. It is nothing more.

> The point of a vote is to find out what the members think, it seems
> to me.

No. You find that out via discussion. In fact, most of us shouldn't
entirely know what we ourselves think until there's been discussion.

Of course, we all have our opinions coming in (Lord knows, I try to
state mine forcefully now and then :-), but there is some chance of
change in the process. Sometimes others have good arguments for a
different position, or point out flaws in mine, or look at it from
some perspective I hadn't considered, or propose some acceptable
compromise, or ...

It is often useful and occasionally necessary to confirm our
judgements about what the discussion has agreed on, using either
a quick informal poll or a more formal vote. However, either is
pointless until there's something to confirm. That is, until
discussion has taken place. 

> I apologize to the Chair if he was insulted by my earlier comment
> that I didn't care what he thought of the merits of the proposal.  My point
> was not intended as an insult, but explain something about procedure.  If
> Thomas Roessler, who many believe to be hard working and sincere, can
> explain to me, a mere member of the GA and not someone who devotes his life
> to ICANN affairs, how to proceed, in plain language, I would be grateful.
> (this is not meant to be ironical).

does the above answer your questions?
- --
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 13:39:58 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

         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 
[email-masked]).  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" <[email-masked]>
>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:[email-masked]
>http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
>
>
>
>--
>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, 3 May 2002 10:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Procedure (was Re: [ga] Text of the motion...)

Hello,

Might it be more appropriate, if one wants to call a vote on something,
to vote on the Stuart Lynn plan formally? It's taken for granted that
folks are opposed to it, but that might be a better starting point, if
a vote hasn't already been taken (maybe I missed it in the blizzard of
messages on the list of late). It seems that opposition to that Lynn
plan is the impetus for the current motion, so it might strengthen the
debate and consensus to deal with it first.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.com
- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 06:24:21 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On Fri, 3 May 2002 05:36:33 -0700, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Friday, May 03, 2002, 5:24:02 AM, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
>> I beleive Jamie *has* proposed a text, hasn't he?
>
>And all his text does is support the premise that the ICANN has used
>to disregard the DNSO GA, that it is nothing but a place for critics
>to swarm and attack it from.
>
>Are you people intentionally setting the DNSO GA up so that it has no
>chance of gaining relevancy?

William the ALSC was specifically set up the Board to advise on at
large issues, given $500,000 of funding, and an internationally
respected figure as Chair.  However this still didn't give the Board a
moment's pause in totally ignoring the ALSC recommendations and
eliminating at large representation on the Board.

So if they are willing to do that to the ALSC what makes you think the
GA has ever a sherrick of influence?  I used to think it could have
some influence but the Accra resolutions of the Board where they
ignored the ALSC, the Names Council, Taskforces and in fact everyone
except their own staff has changed my view.

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: Sat, 04 May 2002 06:29:23 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

On Fri, 03 May 2002 13:39:58 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>         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.

This is also a pretty good summary of my views.  Despite the efforts
of Thomas and other members of the Names Council I have absolutely no
confidence that the Board will adopt any progressive reforms that
weren't planned by the staff anyway.

David Farber et all in their call of several weeks ago correctly
stated that the culture and history of ICANN means it will never be
able to win the trust of the internet community. However a replacement
body could if not captured by a few insiders.

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: Sat, 04 May 2002 06:43:03 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

On Fri, 3 May 2002 11:38:20 -0700, William X Walsh
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>Friday, May 03, 2002, 11:24:21 AM, DPF wrote:
>
>> So if they are willing to do that to the ALSC what makes you think the
>> GA has ever a sherrick of influence?  I used to think it could have
>> some influence but the Accra resolutions of the Board where they
>> ignored the ALSC, the Names Council, Taskforces and in fact everyone
>> except their own staff has changed my view.
>
>So we give up any hope of future influence by validating their
>criticisms?
>
>Not I.

I believe that any future influence would be so small and
insignificant that the preferred course is to get DOC to rebid the
contract.  ICANN have miserably failed to meet the MOU so why should
they get to keep the job?

Cheers

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: Fri, 03 May 2002 13:48:08 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract - update 1

Seems to me a more attainable goal would be to recommend all persons be 
replaced or retained via an election process.

Perhaps we stick with the structure we know and take a risk to try to 
replace nearly the lot of those at the receiving end of the till.  The 
result may be more of the same, something different, or completely 
different than we have now.

Creating some change within the walls of the ICANN office might enable the 
DNSO to carry out it's policy making initiative.  Please consider modifying 
the proposal to be less dramatic - a change of personnel - where no 
appointments are permitted - elected persons only. (or a modification of 
this :  or not.)

:)

~k

Kristy McKee

- --
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 14:11:51 -0500
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: [ga] Fwd: Proposed Time Line - version 2.0, plain text

(Joanna has already sent five posts to our list today, I am forwarding this 
for her, it is actually from Joanna Lane.  I also have a .pdf version of 
this document if anyone would like, please contact me directly (via email).)

Forwarded Message Below:
- ------------------------

DISCUSSION DRAFT
Proposed Time Line - version 2.0
The following table sets out what is believed to be a reasonable guideline
as to the timing of the various events that need to take place in order to
take a vote of the whole Assembly on one or more issues by the end of May.
What follows are not strict "rules" but rather a rough sketch of the rates
at which Members could expect things to happen. That is, the "duration" is
not carved in stone, but rather what one should normally expect to see, all
other things being equal. Since, in order to complete any Vote of the whole
Assembly within a 28 day time period, more than one process must take place
at once, hence this table provides deadlines for each of the concurrent
processes.

ACTION:
General Discussion and investigation of issues (in progress)
duration:7 days
start:Thurs May 2nd
end:Thurs May 9th

Poll(in progress)
duration:3 days
start: Fri May 3rd
end: Sun May 5th

Recognition of Motion(s)
duration:24 hours
Fri May 10th

Debate on Motion(s)
duration:7 days
start:Fri May 10th
end:Fri May 17th

Poll(s) on amendments,
and/ or alternative motions
duration: 3 days
(optional at any time during Debate)

Recognition of Voting Procedure
duration:1 day
Sat May 18th

Secretariat prepares Ballot (s)
duration: 1 day
Sun May 19th

Vote of the whole Assembly
duration:7 days
start:Mon May 20th
end:Mon May 27th

Final Report(Vote results and supporting documentation)
duration:2 days
start:Tues May 28th
end:Wed May 29th

Submit Final Report to ICANN Board
And other interested parties.
Thurs May 30th

Prepared with reference to Best Practices Time Line Guide:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-PartIII.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, 3 May 2002 23:03:08 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

DPF wrote:
> I believe that any future influence would be so small and 
> insignificant that the preferred course is to get DOC to rebid the 
> contract.  ICANN have miserably failed to meet the MOU so why should 
> they get to keep the job?

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?

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 
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.

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 
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?

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 
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.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler (mobile) <[email-masked]>
- --
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: Sat, 4 May 2002 00:00:26 +0200
From: "jeanette hofmann" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Text of the motion...

On 4 May 2002, at 6:29, DPF wrote:

> On Fri, 03 May 2002 13:39:58 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg
> <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> >         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. 

I support a rebid not because I expect the DOC to generate or 
negotiate a better structure next time but rather because the 
current ICANN structure lacks any form of accountability. Rebids 
might be a way of compensating for this severe shortcoming. In the 
unlikely case that we succeed in achieving a rebid, ICANN's  
successor might be less indifferent with regard to proper procedure 
and consensus assertions.

jeanette 

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.
> 
> This is also a pretty good summary of my views.  Despite the efforts
> of Thomas and other members of the Names Council I have absolutely no
> confidence that the Board will adopt any progressive reforms that
> weren't planned by the staff anyway.
> 
> David Farber et all in their call of several weeks ago correctly
> stated that the culture and history of ICANN means it will never be
> able to win the trust of the internet community. However a replacement
> body could if not captured by a few insiders.
> 
> 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
> 

- --
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 20:18:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

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    |   [email-masked]
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 [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 21:39:20 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion asking for GA poll on rebid of ICANN contract

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

>Is the rule we may
>only say 'acceptable' things?  "DON'T say what they don't want to hear"?
>
That appears to be the general tack.

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, 03 May 2002 19:48:16 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] A vote for rebid makes sense

What is the harm if the DoC actually calls for a rebid (as the term has
been coined but is wrong)

Now that we are not "under the radar" it would seem that the best bidder
would win.

ICANN could be that bidder, but not if they adopt the Lynn spew.

It is time to fish or cut bait, ---- or get off the pot.

I think the people working in the GA and in th atlarge.com could make it
work.

hmm. A lot to think about.

Eric

- --
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: Sat, 04 May 2002 00:08:23 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] US Centric Failure

Re Bid.

I have read every post concerning this issue.  And I have come to a
truth.
This is a US problem caused by the US. (oh historically we can call it
an American invention but who cares)

I am not talking about where credit is due.  I am talking about
responsibility.

As US citizens we have failed our brethren by not making/forcing our DoC
to act responsibly.

Netizens are the rightful owners here, but US citizens hold a
responsibility to those Netizens.

I cry to all US participants to stand up and make a statement here and
insist that our DoC, and I mean OUR DoC act right and send this for a Re
Bid.  If there is one of us that is proud of ICANN and does not believe
we can do better,  so state now.  I don't think so.  So stand up now and
demand that our GOV do better for our friends, for other rightful owners
of the Net.

How can we send our soldiers to stop oppression and wrong yet we stand
weak and allow our own government to allow oppression and tyranny
through the Internet?

It is time us Internet US users just plain got some backbone and kicked
our failed governments ass into doing the right thing.

Thank you Jamie for bringing this to the forefront and I apologize to
all my non-US friends that we have not done so sooner

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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 #1159
*************************