[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [atlarge-discuss] Watchdog members
Joanna,
Thank you for your honesty and integrity. Jefsey does not understand
either concept as he is a fraud (or is it "Claude").
This is not a election, it's an appointment by Jefsey with his stooges
and cronies nodding their heads in complicitous duplicity. They have no
shame or honour, or ethics, none of them. Worms to the last.
--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Joanna Lane wrote:
From: J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:jefsey@club-internet.fr]
Joanna,
you certainly have hard time understanding that in this election the
watchdogs are not to watch the ballots but to watch me.
That says it all. Why didn't you just appoint a Panel? It would save all
this time and the result would be the same.
And that all the
members will watch the ballots.
In other words, the Watchdogs never get to see the ballots until after you
personally have edited them.
This is mandatory because it is not
acceptable that a non elected watchdog knows the votes. IDs have
nothing to
do with it.
Huh? How can Watchdogs act independently to verify the ballots if they are
not allowed to see them until you have edited all identifying marks? Since
when was it a requirement for there to be an election to appoint Watchdogs?
Watchdogs are officers of the organization who are appointed by elected
officials of the organization, in this case the Polling Committee (actually
I don't remember electing you but that is beside the point). So the way to
view Watchdogs is in much the same way you would view your legal counsel or
your accountant. These "advisors" are also are not elected. You do not get
good legal advice if you remove the name and address at the top of a lawsuit
because your attorney was not elected to his job by members of the
organization who is being sued? In the same way, you will not get
independent verification of election results unless you allow polling
officers aka Watchdogs to see the ballots.
BTW I find odd that someone who volunteers to perform something acoording
to an invitation, starts first to object to the invitation terms
and wants
to run his/her own show.
Not odd at all. I have a thorough understanding and experience of the role
of Watchdog through my particpation in the DNSO over the last 3 or so years.
If you had intended the role to be a different on, with greatly reduced
repsonisbility, then you should have made that clear from the outset and not
used the label Watchdog - Puppydog would be more appropriate perhaps.
Obviuously you consider the Watchdogs to be subservient to your rule, rather
than be independant and this is where we disagree. There is only one master
in this organization and it is not you or Eric, or Bruce, it is the *Public
Interest*. Even if Paul Twomey himself extended the invitation to me, I
would still serve the same master, and you are certainly not the CEO of
ICANN.
We happen to want to be in democracy. There are
members and these members are just voting now.
Actually, we haven't a clue who is voting now - maybe a few non-members in
the mix.
There voice will count in
their organization. May be it will be not yours and not mine. But it will
be their organization, believe me, and I wish them the best.
Oh please. Your voice is the loudest of all right now. It's all going your
way.
Again, let be frank; I do love Bruce's "lead, follow or get off".
jfc
Interesting. I only ever see you pushing the "lead" part. Why won't you ever
"follow" another's lead, or let anybody else control anything Jesfey? Why do
you lecture them incessantly in private about how things should be. Why
won't you allow the Watchdogs to do their job without your interference? Why
do you have to control everything or sabotage it? Why won't you ever try the
"get off" part?
Regards,
Joanna
n 21:56 28/05/03, Joanna Lane said:
Along with a few others, I was invited to be a Watchdog by
Jefsey, I assume
because I have prior Watchdog experience in ICANN Elections.
About the same
time, Joey Borda expressed concern about ID verification for
candidates on
the main discuss list. I have spoken with Joey on the phone and am
reasonably certain he is who he says he is, is a trustworthy and reliable
person, with experience as an election officer, hence I had no
hesitation in
recommending him as a Watchdog. I believe Jefsey then invited
him to join.
I myself resigned as a Watchdog shortly thereafter because I
could not agree
with Jefsey's explicit objections to any form of ID verification of the
Watchdogs themselves, most of whom I do not know and have not seen
participating, save Norbert Klein. And while Jefsey did not respond to
reasoned argument, he cited published election rules, while refusing to
provide a copy of the same.
So far as Watchdog working methods are concerned, they bear no
relation to
that performed in ICANN DNSO Elections, except in name. It seems the new
role has defined unilaterally by Jefsey unilaterally and so far as I'm
aware, none of the Polling Committee - Jefsey, Bruce or Eric - have any
prior experience as an ICANN Watchdog. No doubt they will
correct me if I'm
wrong. I believe one of the mistakes being made in this election, is not
forwarding the ballots in their raw state to Watchdogs, instead stripping
them of any ID. This severely restricts the watchdog's ability to double
check the count, or checking ballots against the valid
membership list, and
so on. I would say that the watchdogs seem to be largely a
symbolic gesture
rather than fulfilling any meaningful role, hence I wanted no
part of it and
resigned.
Regards,
Joanna
-----Original Message-----
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2003 2:03 PM
To: abel@able-towers.com
Cc: 'At Large Discuss'
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Watchdog members
I forgot to point out the fact that:
www.execlub.org/atlarge.htm
IS NOT the official web site of this organization.
--Sotiris Sotiropoulos
Abel Wisman wrote:
According to www.execlub.org/atlarge.htm :
Joe Borda
Alexandru Jalba
Norbert Klein
Thomas Roessler
Merle Swain
These have "watchdog" with their name so I am assuming they have
accepted or offered to act as such.
Regards
Abel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.483 / Virus Database: 279 - Release Date: 19/05/03
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
--
-----------
"The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire- namely, as something existing absolutely.
But for history, the state and power are merely phenomena, just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon.
From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence, it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power- existing immutably outside time- is, but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing."
--Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"