[ncdnhc-discuss] CPTech statement on GA rebid vote

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

I think its importance is hypothetical - it depends what ICANN tries to
announce it has consensus for in about a month.

On Fri, 24 May 2002, Adam Peake wrote:

> 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
> 

-- 
[Note: I killfile Cr*cker, JW*lliams, other noisemakers]

		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
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 cool here.<--