[ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote

[Adam Peake]

"motions to vote on" - exactly, that was what it was about. You 
didn't propose an issue to discuss, you opened by asking how to vote.

I did not see any attack in my questions -- please don't be paranoid, 
disagreement and skepticism is not attack. I am skeptical about the 
value of the vote, and hope you won't try and build the result into 
something clearly isn't.

Thanks,

Adam


At 8:06 AM -0400 5/24/02, James Love wrote:
>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
>:
>:
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss