ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN's Gig | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 13 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Re: DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN'
    by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Friday May 24 2002, @12:59AM (#6489)
    User #2810 Info
    tlr writes:
    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.
    If it wasn't used at the end of the day, why do you now point out that the second Motion received more positive and less negative votes than the first, more or less declaring it the winner? As both options received clear majorities, quite a number of voters had to have voted yes to both, so a positive vote for the second can hardly be taken as a vote against the first. -g

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Liars and liars, great and small
    by Anonymous on Friday May 24 2002, @02:00AM (#6491)
    "Anyway, congratulations to your newly improved skills in lying by omission."

    Really, since you seem to see these things so clearly, I must have missed your protest against the often repeated message that ICANN made an enormous step forward regarding the At Large in Accra. Newly again on at-large.org they tried this rhetorics. Where do I read you calling the Board liars?
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN'
    by Anonymous on Friday May 24 2002, @02:47AM (#6492)
    Clear majority? It's great seeing the results of a vote that saw less than 1/3 of the ga voters casting a ballot as a "majority" of anything. Not that this is important, as you are right, the majority of voters on both motions favored the motions, but in an institution that emphasises "consensus" and not "votes", holding this up as "the will of [insert favorite group here] is ridiculous.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: DNSO GA Votes to Ask Commerce to Re-bid ICANN'
    by Anonymous on Friday May 24 2002, @03:25AM (#6493)
    thomas--

    please re-read my second paragraph, and please notice as well that i provided a link to the vote results announcement. that's a subtle way of saying: check the facts yourself.

    i wrote about the one motion because that's the one i think is most significant. the second motion was, in my view, not only much less significant but also deeply intertwingled with the slapstick style with which you, as GA chair, oversaw the whole affair.

    as you may remember, you denounced the first motion and obstructed in numerous ways. but then -- after the GA alternate chair introduced the second motion -- you suddenly became much more amenable to a vote. at the time, the GA alt chair wrote: "My personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting motions." and you yourself wrote:

    Since the objective of this election is to have one resolution in the end, I have added the rule that the resolution which receives most "yes" votes is the one we consider the ultimate outcome of the vote.

    If you folks want to go without this addition, the question would have to be: "Which resolution do you want to have?" The three mutually exclusive answers would be: James' resolution, Alexander's resolution, no resolution at all.

    but rather than get into all this byzantiniana, i thought i'd merely doff my hat at it by citing the charges and countercharges hurled back and forth.

    but since you've called me a 'liar' for omitting explicit mention your effort to torpedo jamie's motion, i guess i'll explicitly mention it.

    it would be churlish of me to downgrade my assessment of your work because you called me a name, but there's one remark i'll modify. in my article, i cited the fact that jamie's motion passed as redounding to your credit. perhaps it would have been more to the point to say that it redounds to the credit of the GA members who pursued a course they believe in despite your vigorous efforts.

    --tbyfield
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com