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

[atlarge-discuss] I will not be a candidate



Vittorio Jeff and Bruce commented my position IRT Vittorio.
I do not thik it is as simple as Jeff sees it. I will explain here
the way I see it. I think I owe it to him.

But first, Vittorio speaks of defamation. This could  be true if
I had not been over cautious in going by the book: writing to him,
writing to him copying Bruce as the third Panelist, wrting to him
copying the 10 other panelists, then writing to him copying the whole
Membership. Each time I sent him a private mail first. There
is no defamation, but certainly substantiated questions by his
silences and public disrepects of his own public writings and duties.
I must said I hated what he made me to do.

First, let be clear, Vittorio has many CIOs. But it is untrue that
Panelists ignored them. Actually he openly discussed them, and
I pushed him to keep relations with ICANN to keep a bridge open
with them, however reluctant he was. I thanked him for that, I
opposed Jamie and Joanna on that, in nominating Vittorio for Chair
against Joanna. We never discussed (as far as I recall) his
involvement in ISOC Italy: such an involvement is a good and an
honorable thing we can all suppport (all the more than ISOC
Europe is partly in conflict with ISOC).

My understanding, based upon Vittorio's actions and mails is
that he could have been a good Chair (we saw it in the first
days) but that, as many, he confuses leading and commanding.
When I compare his style with Joop, Hans or Joanna (the de
facto leaders we had) he is no different, except that when Joop
complexifies with democratic alibies, Hans tries to make endorsed
what he imposed, Joanna wants to go by rules no one had read
(all that is predictable), Vittorio is unpredictable as he
fluctutates in positions, knowledge and delays. He says that he
listens to the community, believing he serves it, but adding coups
over coups.This is instable kingship, not simple matter of fact
democracy. His only problem is the elected Panel. He knows
he needs it, it seems he does not see what positive to do with it.
This makes him to totally disrespect it.

All these experiences, plus my own epxerience of extreme
confort as the last Polling Officer of the IDNOn as a neutral
servant to the community, lead me to propose a very, very
simple way to manage this community.

So you talk about COI for Vittorio. I would name it COD
conflict of duties. Vittorio says himself that ALAC is no
big deal but that no one cares about icannatlarge.org.

This is true with two "buts" which make a difference:

- ALAC is paying Vittorio's and Thomas' ticket to RIO.
  I do not say they have been "purchased", but that
  when an organization bores you by stupid mails and
  another makes you fly to Rio, you tend to think you
  can achieve more with the later than with the former. So,
  you tend to favor the laters interests, for the sake of
  common efficiency, all the more if the former"s poor
  shape is in part your own fault.

   Frankly, who would think differently?

- As Vittorio points it out, no one cares about icannatlarge
  and no one wants to hear about it. icannatlarge is a
  problem for Vittorio, the same as Esther was/is a
  problem for the BoD. You tend to reduce and forget
  the problems.

  So the same ICANN plays with ALAC, the same
  Vittorio plaid with us. That was sad. It was poorly
  made, with poor methods. Hopefully, the page is over.

  Except: who has the domain name password?

Jeff, you objected to me talking of the Panel. Please re-read
I talked about Panelists. One of the most damageable
thing Vittorio did was to send the list to Judyth and Jan
and not to the Panelists (who could have passed it to
them, hence my mail to ask them to accept it, both to
protect them - there is a real trap - and the stability of
our community). This brings us back more than one year
back, in a worse situation. At that time Joop insured
stability and direction, even if controverted.

The only stability this organization has is its elected
people. The current Panelists (Bruce, Vittorio and me).
Its real pain is its two challengers: Vittorio and Joop,
one distroying by organized mess, one destroying
by messy questionning of everything.

- Either we leave Vittorio to continue the mess in using
  Judyth and Jan against the Panelists and Joop, and
  then Joop will immediately fall into the trap (we start
  knowing him - and seeing his mails :-), challenging
  Vittorio through endless debates on Bylaws, questions
  to everyone, polls after polls, etc feding-up everyone,
  may-be electing a 5 or 7 people group, others will contest.

-  Or we trust our own institution and do not favor anyone
   but respect the authority of the Panel (only challenged
   todate by quitting Panelists and by its Cgair). The
   problem is that the Panel is only two persons today.

   Is that sufficient or not?

   I think it is sufficient to save the ship and that it is
   not to govern the ship.

   - one: all the elected panelists by right are welcome,
     to increase our immediate protection against Joop
     who was not elected and Vittorio who succeded
     in "quitting with-in". Our problem with Joop and
     Vittorio, is not to fight them, but to keep them equal
     when they put themselves in simple Member position
     (Joop in not being elected, Vittorio by his demeanor).
     Richard, YJ Park, Hans or Jamie did not quit to start
     governing.

   - two: this is why I proposed a simple plan - but I
     needed it to be endorsed by the Chair to be
     democratic, or the Chair to publicly fail. What he
     now has done.

     The plan is to organize elections. Without reinventing
     the wheel. 11 panelists elected in the simplest way,
     for a simple mandate (manage the list, manage the
     site, enter MoUs with who wants if the Members say
     yes, incorporate). This will not result form a long debate
     (itwill come in due time), but being written on the ballot,
     as the mission statement of the elected Panelist.

      - incorporation of the list/site management is a
        must to protect the Members from what has just
        happened. Whatever Vittorio may say, he gave
        Judyth and Jan our names and e-mails to third
        parties. We gave it to the organization, ie to
        its elected trustees. Today I can sue Vittorio,
        Judyth and Jan (very weak, but it legally stands;
        if there was substential spamming that could be
        different). Please remember how Joop was a
        pain but was right about protecting the list.

        This Membership must have the legal capacity
        to ask the hosting company or the registrar to
        give them a new  password.

     - a most limited mandate permits to limitate the
       problems of the Panel and to protect us against
       its chair's kingmanship. Time has come for
       Republic :-)

     - MoUs because we must be able to change and
       extend, organize that mission, and because we do not
       want to waste our time in long debates Joop/JFC
       or DPF/JFC etc... over the whole story, to support
       Sotiris representation, or DPT or Danny's efforts.
       When there is a need, anyone can popose something
       and get a vote. MoUs because we can enter them
       easily once incorporated and they are not as rigid
       as bylaws. But most of all they can be progressive.

       If more is needed, Members will vote.

Now, some will tell me: who made yo King to propose this.
I will say: "no, one". My intend is to see this organization
to go through, not to command or reign over it.

I will not be a candidate.
jfc


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