Re: [atlarge-discuss] The ICANNatlarge.com web page

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 11:08 a.m. 1/08/2002 -0400, James Love wrote:

> 4.   Then we began to discuss the bills that we being made by Joop to 
> maintain the site.  I was not aware we were being billed for anything by 
> anyone, and did not see how anyone could expect to be paid like that 
> without a contract or agreement.
Jamie,

I see you choose to maintain the myth of the webmaster billing the panel. 
THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
All I am doing is maintain a transparant view of the cost of the work, of 
the pledges made and of the donations received.


>  There was also an issue of NZ ISOC wanting to donate $1,000, which many 
> panel members including myself thought was for Joop, and there was an 
> informal consensus to facilitate this.
[InternetNZ has nothing to do with ISOC]

> 5.   At one point SS did sent a note to Joop, the one that Joop posted to 
> the list, offering to build the site for a fraction of what Joop had 
> billed, but this was not something pursued by the panel, and in fact, 
> several panel members indicated they did *not* want (a) panel members to 
> run the web page or (b) panel members to be paid to provide services to 
> icannatlarge.com.
> 6.   The board discussed and reached I believe an informal consensus that 
> 3 members of the panel would receive the passwords for the site, and we 
> would put out a call for a webmaster.  VB drafted a call for a webmaster, 
> to be posted on the discuss list.
Who were those 3 members that were to be trusted (by informal consensus, 
not by vote) with the keys? When was I informed of this?

> 7.  It was also becoming clear that there were some issues with the web 
> site.  In particular, requests to have clear and prominent links to the 
> mailing lists and archives of the mailing lists were not being put up, and 
> there was a growth of editorial material being put up or linked to the 
> site that Joop seemed to be doing  on his own, plus we were being billed 
> for this.
>  Even small stuff wasn't being fixed, like making it more clear that 
> "register here" meant... sign up to become a member... or something more 
> clear.
That  was done within 12 hours after it was asked.  Sheesh!

>  But given the other problems, particularly the ERC proposals and 
> Esther/Denise's   new at-large.org effort, plus some controversy over the 
> timing of the election, it was not a top priority.
>
> 8.  In Bucharest I met with VB, Isumzi and Wolfgang, and was surprised to 
> learn that Joop was refusing to turn over the passwords to the panel 
> members, and that this was one reason that VB had not invoiced NZ for the 
> $1,000.  VB and I had differences on other issues, but I personally think 
> VB was correct in this.
VB was  wrong :
1. telling you that he had to invoice InternetNZ - that was not the case.
2. using his power as panel chair to hold up the payment in order to demand 
control over the keys of the website at a point in time that his mandate 
was expiring.


> 7.   I asked Joop to turn over the passwords, and told him that was why VB 
> had not invoiced the $1,000.  Joop indicated he did not trust VB and other 
> board members, because he disagreed with things they had done or said in 
> Bucharest.  b
At this point you better let the real correspondence speak for itself, Jamie.

> 8.    Now we have what seems to be suggestions for an expanded and 
> somewhat exalted role for the webmaster..  who has duties that are yet to 
> be limited...   VB is more or less on vacation...   so we'll fix all of 
> this later, with the new panel, I'm sure.
>
> 9.   Mby only real concern is that Joop may want to use his access to the 
> membership list to spam the membership... something I have strong feelings 
> about, and something also I think could drive people away from the 
> organization, if not report us to anti-spam groups.   I would be pleased 
> if Joop would agree not only to spam members now, but after he is 
> replaced, to destroy his records of the membership lists, unless he is 
> choosen by the new panel as one of the trusted parties to hold this 
> information.   I might add this is seems like a very simple and fair request.
I am glad that you bring out your *real* concern.

It is a side-benefit of my innocent mailout to throw this issue of trust 
into sharp relief.   Abuse of this list at election time was my concern as 
well.

This issue will need to be worked out whoever is in possession of the 
keys.    What will you do if you go through a succession of 
webmasters?  How can you ever ensure that the list will *not* be abused?

You support distribution of the keys to people who do not understand their 
obligations as elected Panel members, and yet you single out the initiator 
of the website effort as the person who cannot be trusted with them.
Who else are you asking to destroy their copies of the members' list?  Mr 
Katoh? Andy MM? Karl?  Bret? Vittorio? Thomas? Elisabeth?
It is an insulting request.
Yes, you  have my undertaking that I will never use the members' list for 
"spam".

I understand that you, when elected, will ask your colleagues on the new 
Panel to endorse a list of "people who can be trusted with membership 
data". Great idea.  :)
Do you also propose that the debate on this will be archived and public? 
Can the subjects defend themselves against false representations?
Will there be an open vote?

I hear Joe Sims and Esther Dyson laughing in the distance.


--Joop


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