The motion, originally suggested by consumer advocate Jamie Love, is as follows:

WHEREAS the Internet Corporation for Assigned names and Numbers (ICANN) has dramatically changed the initial terms of reference for ICANN, and is proposing even further changes.

WHEREAS these proposed changes have met extensive opposition in the Internet community and go even further from the original terms of reference.

WHEREAS a new open competition would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce (the DoC) to consider both the ICANN Board proposal for restructuring, and alternatives offered by others for managing key Internet resources, while providing for a public record of the process for enhanced visibility.

WHEREAS the General Assembly of ICANN's Domain Name Supporting Organization (the DNSO) also reminds the DoC, that in the Green and the White Paper, the Government of the United States made it clear that it intends to withdraw from management of the Domain name System (the DNS).

It is hereby RESOLVED that:-

The General Assembly of the Domain Name Supporting Organization of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) asks the US Department of Commerce to have an open competition for the services now provided by ICANN, provided that the new competition would address the need to develop an international framework for DNS management. An open competition should aim to achieve comprehensive privatization and internationalization of DNS services, consistent with the need for stability, but also innovation, competition and freedom.

The debates leading up to the vote were fast and furious (they start here and run through hundreds of messages). Critics of the motion leveled accusations involving institutional "suicide," using Slashdot to engage in "ballot stufffing" and rally ignorant "herds," and the like. Proponents of the motion accused the GA chair Thomas Roessler (whose vehement opposition to the motion led him to accuse Jamie Love of "trying to abuse the GA as a throw-away public relations tool") of "censorship," "corruption," and the like.

In all fairness, while I'm skeptical about how Mr. Roessler handled the affair -- he himself admitted to "a rather 'creative' application of the GA's voting rules" -- this kind of prefab bombast is mostly silly. Proof: the motion came to a vote and passed.

Now it remains to be seen whether or how word of this will ever bubble up through ICANN's "bottom-up" process to the DoC -- and, of course, whether or how the DoC will take it into account.

I'm really impressed by how you manage to twist the facts. But I suppose that only means that I really shouldn't expect ICANNwatch editors to give a full picture of a story, should I?

• There were two motions. The second one (which does not call for an unconditional re-bid!) had 164 votes in favor, 33 against, and 19 abstentions. That's more in favor and less opposed than the "re-bid" motion. Still, you don't even mention that motion in a single sentence.
• You quote me as having admitted to a "rather creative application of the GA's voting rules." Yes, I said that. But I said that referring to a proposed voting mode which was not used in the end of the day - and by which, by the way, the second motion would have been the one considered the "winner" of this vote.

Anyway, congratulations to your newly improved skills in lying by omission.

T.R.