[ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote

[James Love]

Adam,  Your comment regarding the nature of the debate was quite unfair.

I agreed to every proposal by Joanna and Thomas to extend the tme for the
debate. It was Thomas who insisted on the date of the vote.   I suggested we
have a richer set of motions to vote on.  I supported the inclusion of
Alexander's moderate motion.  I didn't spend my time attaching persons
character, as Thomas did to me, and continues to even today on the GA list,
where his subject line includes the word Liar, in a forward of my
random-bits post.    What did I do to prevent anyone, you, Thomas, or anyone
else, from having "an interesting and informed discussion before the vote
was taken?"

The proponents of Motion 1 did offer substantive arguments in its favor, and
tried to engage the other side in substance, and a number of changes were
made to accomodate issues raised by several GA members.  On the last day of
the scheduled debate over the language, Alexander announced that Thomas had
given him a private 3 day extention to gather support for brand new text
that he refussed to modify or consider changes.

Adam.  Why do you choose to attack me over the process?

Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Peake" <ajp at glocom.ac.jp>
To: "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org>; "Thomas Roessler"
<roessler at does-not-exist.org>
Cc: "NCDNHC-discuss list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 7:48 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote


: Jamie
:
: But what did the vote achieve?
:
: Did we enjoy the opportunity to have an interesting and informed
: discussion before the vote was taken?  I don't think we even know
: know what the GA membership means by "re-bid"?
:
: I fail to see how it was "important", I would define important as
: something that might have an impact: the vote on motion 1 won't.
: Sure, it is interesting, but really it was nothing more than a straw
: poll.
:
: I got the impression that Thomas wanted to have debate to try and
: make the vote a little more meaningful.  Shame you didn't let him.
:
: Thanks,
:
: Adam
:
:
: At 7:40 AM -0400 5/24/02, James Love wrote:
: >----- 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
: >
: >
: >
: >_______________________________________________
: >Discuss mailing list
: >Discuss at icann-ncc.org
: >http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
:
: _______________________________________________
: Discuss mailing list
: Discuss at icann-ncc.org
: http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
:
: