[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org
- To: t byfield <email@example.com>
- Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:53:58 -0700
- CC: NCDNHC <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, gen full <email@example.com>, ICANN At Large Forum <firstname.lastname@example.org>, atlarge discuss list <email@example.com>
- Delivered-To: mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Help: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Post: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-Subscribe: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Mailing-List: contact email@example.com; run by ezmlm
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <B908919C.175DDfirstname.lastname@example.org> <Pine.GSO.email@example.com> <20020516135706.GA6824@panix.com>
Ted and all,
The stakeholders have unfortunately been saddled with Alejandro and
Dave Crocker's much maligned murmurings and insinuations of various
types for over 5 years now. This is just one more example. It
clearly shows to our members that the ICANN contracts need to
be rebid and hopefully the current regime can be replaced with
something more appropriate and attentive to the stakeholders
needs and desires...
The only other direction that seems avalible that could be
productive and accountable would be a strong At-Large
presence on the ICANN BoD. Yet it seems that
currently the ICANN BoD is gaming this alternitive
in the extreme.
t byfield wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Thu 05/16/02 at 01:22 AM -0500):
> > Milton has had his facts corrected and has not come out to acknowledge so.
> which fact would those be, alejandro? i won't reproduce his minimal
> recitation of names, dates of events, and quotations, but i will note
> that the only substantive revision of a 'fact' we've seen so far is
> that of crocker's statement that spousal employment isn't mentioned
> in the by-laws. he's right, it's not in the by-laws -- because it's
> covered very explicitly in other binding documents.
> > Funny that this should happen exactly when this constituency was making an
> > attempt to form its own policy on conflicts of interest. Spanish speakers
> > have a very low regard for the attitude of "lanza la piedra y esconde la
> > mano", "throw the stone and hide the hand".
> so why don't you show your hand and come out and plainly accuse MM
> of using this as a red herring to obstruct an NCDNHS COI? or are
> you insinuating that it is a broader conspiracy?
> > The rest is vicious picking on people who are not even being addressed
> > directly. Now that Dave has gotten you to your dictionary please look up
> > "gavel", Spanish "picota" or "picota publica".
> ICANN is a public organization, and this conversation is a public
> conversation; everyone who's participated know that very well and,
> i assume, knows further that the affected people are have been in-
> formed about it. they are free to make their case here or in other
> fora, such as ICANN watch, where the apparent facts were published.
> NCDNHCers are far too experienced to expect ICANN's board or staff
> to take this up proactively; and so, i suppose, the burden falls on
> others to pursue this case in some forum. at this point, though, i
> don't think many people who'd be inclined to *ask these questions*
> -- which is a necessary step in an *inquiry* -- will find it easy
> to summon the energy to do so. time and again we've seen how dili-
> gently ICANN incumbents circle their wagons and use bureaucratic
> procedure to bog down whatever doesn't suit them. and, of course,
> rob blokzijl chairs ICANN's COI committee. even smoking guns don't
> work in ICANN -- how much less so a curiosity borne of integrity.
> > Of all members of this list I am particularly apalled that you would
> > lend yourself to this revolting maneuver. Ted Byfield has made a posting
> > that is beyond contempt and should have been your amber light to lift off
> > the quagmire. I trust you will.
> if your found my post to be beyond contempt, i'm inclined to in-
> terpret that as an indication of how disastrously limited your
> contempt is.
> my questions remain. it seems unlikely that lynn blokzijl's object-
> ive qualifications made her the best candidate in amsterdam for her
> current position. however, i would be very pleased to be shown that
> i am wrong to suspect something, and, further, will apologize be-
> fore i am even asked to do so.
> Discuss mailing list
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org