[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[atlarge-discuss] Re: Time to Fire Joop as Webmaster was: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: WG-DNS name protection



Jamie and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,

James Love wrote:

> No one is firing Joop.  Joop resigned.

  Well so he has said, yes.  However...???

>  We just need to name a replacement.
>   I hope we can do this in the year 2002.

  It shouldn't take but a few days, Jamie...

>
> Jamie
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> > Jamie and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
> >
> >   Jamie, frankly the only way to make the "Transition" from Joop
> > to Bret or Sotiris is to just fire Joop immediately.  Just that simple.
> > If I were Joop I would expect this to occur at this juncture and after
> > this much time has passed.
> >
> >   If Joop after being fired does not wish to contribute and cooperate
> > in turning over the previous Web Page data from ICANNATLARGE.COM
> > to Bret or Sotiris, than fine.  We can recreate most of it without too
> > much problem or taking up too much time either...
> >
> > James Love wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sotiris,
> >>
> >>      I think we were ready to appoint you the webmaster a week or two ago,
> >>but some support evaporated after some of your blasts at various panel
> >>members....  and I think understandably there is an interest in having the
> >>webmaster job more or less depoliticized.   At this point, we have
> >>recommended have Brett be the formal webmaster, with the idea that there
> >>will be different volunteers who help out on the site.  Of course, we have
> >>to get this motion approved by the panel before anything happens.  Right now
> >>Joop is the webmaster.  It's my fault that you didn't get a private note or
> >>a cc on this, and I apologize.  But we are also still not at the point where
> >>the rest of the web management stuff is decided.  Right now we are trying to
> >>agree on a transition from Joop for control of the site, to non-panel
> >>members for a little continuity..
> >>
> >>Jamie
> >>
> >>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> >>
> >>>DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Jamie,
> >>>>
> >>>>Before you begin questioning the relationship between established user
> >>>>organizations and ICANN, you might want to ask if your own group, without any
> >>>>organizational documents, without even a mission statement, bylaws or
> >>>>charter, even qualifies as an organization suitable for recognition as an
> >>>>at-large structure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps a dis-organization, then?  Especially of late.
> >>>
> >>>Before I received this email from Danny, I was about to post a link to the list
> >>>directing all of you to a mock-up web site which Hans requested I put together
> >>>(even though I had ALREADY set up the PHPNuke site for all of you to view a
> >>>couple months ago!  Remember that ladies and gentlemen?!?  Check the archives, if
> >>>you like...).  However, having read Danny's email I stopped myself and decided to
> >>>visit the Panel's closed list archive for a look at how our leaders are going
> >>>about the business of this "organization".  Much to my surprise, I saw a motion
> >>>from Jamie Love (seconded by Hans Klein) to make Brett Faussett the new
> >>>webmaster.  No offense against Brett, but where's he been for the last couple
> >>>months? I didn't hear him volunteering his services when a new webmaster was
> >>>being sought.  Or, ( as is probably the case) is this some kind of a compromise
> >>>selection to placate Joop?  In any case, if this is the direction the Panel
> >>>wishes to take, then I wish them all the power in the world.  However, I cannot
> >>>for a moment understand why the WG-Web members (of which I am one) were not
> >>>consulted?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>As per the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform's Second Interim
> >>>>Implementation Report:  "We agree that individual at large entities should
> >>>>meet some "accreditation" standard, and we find the criteria and standards
> >>>>recommended by the Assistance Group to be an attractive list."
> >>>>
> >>>>This "list" stipulates structured, self-sustaining entities that engage in
> >>>>outreach and post current information about the organization's aims,
> >>>>structure, constituents, working mechanisms, and current leadership.
> >>>>
> >>>>1.  Your aims are not posted
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>To date I submitted TWO different versions of Mission Statements for this
> >>>organization (both several months ago) which elicited next to no comments, and
> >>>yet there is still no substantive work produced by the 'power elite' among us on
> >>>this issue.  Shameful.  This and the webmaster issue noted above are enough to
> >>>put off persons (such as myself) who are willing to contribute substantively...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>2.  You have no organizational structure
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Oh, but we do... dis-organization.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>3.  You are not self-sustaining
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>If bombast and self-important bluster were the fuel of the day, I'd say we're
> >>>self-perpetuating rather than self-sustaining.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>4.  You have no established working mechanisms or procedures for the general
> >>>>membership
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Why bother, that would detract from the nominal importance of our Panel
> >>>Members...  BTW, Danny, have you perhaps heard anything from that champion of the
> >>>common netizens, Satyajit Gupta?  I wonder if the other Panel Members approve of
> >>>his delinquency?  If not, then why are there no steps being taken to replace him?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>5.  You can't document any organizational outreach activities
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Well, you might have something there.  Perhaps Richard Henderson can fill us in
> >>>on the progress towards the 100, 000 membership base he promised.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>After you get your own house in order, then feel free to question the
> >>>>relationship of ISOC chapters to ICANN -- they at least meet the minimum
> >>>>criteria expected for an at-large structure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Except for the fact that they are now a Registry operator, which puts them in the
> >>>gTLD constituency...
> >>>
> >>>Seriously Disappointed,
> >>>
> >>>Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>--
> >>------
> >>James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> >>http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> >>voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040
> >>
> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> >>For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> ------
> James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org
> voice: 1.202.387.8030; mobile 1.202.361.3040

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de