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.