[ncdnhc-discuss] ICANN GA to vote on 2 motions, one for DoC rebid of ICANN Contracts

[jefsey]

This only shows that with proper sharing we would have had a graduated 
useful motion developing a real strategy, putting appropriate pressure and 
yet giving a real position to the reform committee if it wanted to act. I 
suggest the ncdnhc carries the debate the GA has been deprived from. In any 
way the message is clear ... and repeated ... we want the USG to assume its 
moral obligations to the world in controlling a fair, transparent and open 
minded process, respecting the initial terms, or these terms to be 
officially changed. jfc


At 16:30 15/05/02, James Love wrote:
>I plan to vote *for* both motions, which are fairly similiar.  I have a brief
>analysis of the two texts following the GA announcement of the vote.
>Jamie

<snip>

>Looking at both motions, I can't see a good reason to vote
>against either one.  Of course I agree with the
>Love/Lane/etc text, asking for the rebid ("new open
>competition for services now provided by ICANN"), but the
>"moderate" text by Alexander Svensson, while definitely
>bland, is not objectionable either.  In my mind there is
>little virtue in offering a text that is "moderate",
>"radical" or "conservative."    I think the more important
>issue is whether or not it expresses the right idea, the
>thing that makes sense doing, or at least asking.  Sometime
>what is needed is moderate, sometimes radical, sometimes
>conservative, and sometimes these labels mean next to
>nothing.  Here are a couple of comparisons in terms of tone
>if not substance:
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02