[ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Roessler" <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>; <random-bits at lists.essential.org>
Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote


: Note the numbers: There were MORE yes votes, and LESS no votes for
: motion 2.  How does that make "Motion 1" the "more important" one?

   Thomas.  In my opinion, Motion 1 was both more controversial and more
important.  A direct request from the GA to rebid the contract is a dramatic
rejection of the ICANN reform process.  You recognized this and campaigned
very aggressively against having a vote on Motion 1 for exactly that reason.
You argued time and time against that Motion 1 would destroy the GA.  What
is the basis now for saying it wasn't important?   I could get a 100 percent
vote that May 24, 2002  falls on a Friday,  which is something that everyone
could agree upon,  but it would not be particularly important.     How do
you define "important"?

  Jamie

PS... I'm glad that motion 2 also passed.  I voted for it too.  It says
almost the same thing as Motion 2, but it isn't as blunt.  Motion 2 also
left out also provison on the need to protect "innovation, competition and
freedom."  Does that mean these are not important values, because Motion 2
had the higher vote total?  Or just that some people don't think they are as
important as others do?   Motion 1 was a strong statement, and it received a
very large majority.  That was important to us, and I think it will be
important to others also.


--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love at cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040