Re: [ICANN-EU] A challenging deadlock

["Constantine S. Chassapis" <cschassapis@acm.org>]

----- Original Message -----
From: Griffini Giorgio <grigio@mediapoint.it>
To: <icann-europe@fitug.de>
Cc: <ajm@icann.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2000 4:27 AM
Subject: [ICANN-EU] A challenging deadlock


[...]
> A day or two after I filled the nomination application and when the
> presentation web page was already showing on the ICANN site, I realized I
> left out some information and I sent a message to election staff in order
to
> know if was possibile to update that page. I received no answer so I
thought
[...]
> On my presentation I was stating I was in wait for an answer from
> IANA/ICANN about a thing I requested for my company.
[...]
> On email received yesterday there is also the answer I was talking about
> in my presentation.
> This fact makes my current presentation stating improper statement
[...]
> On my side I think it is not fair to leave that misleading statement there
> (almost in respect of involved parties) and that it is not fair that I'm
bound to
> be 'unfair' by not being able to update that statement .
>
> On the ICANN side it is not fair to make an exception and allow me to
> update the page while not allowing the same to other candidates.
>
> The most 'curious' thing is that we falled into this deadlock as a result
of a
> fair action (giving me an answer) .. .:)
>
> How we can handle this in a 'fair' way ?

Dear Giorgio,

It is a very interesting "deadlock" the one you describe. I believe you are
responsible for arriving at that deadlock, because you were allowed to
use URLs in your initial statement, so you were free to put a link and a
statement of the type: "in few days, here (enter the link) you will find the
true status of the situation I am describing now".  You were not fair at
the beginning so you arrived at the deadlock. You did not arrived to the
deadlock because of fair action as you say. Sorry if I reprimand you,
it is not my intention, especially towards you that I like your ideas in
general, I just have to defend "fairness" and "fair play", almost an
obsession for me.

So, you forgot the URL.
People at ICANN cannot allow you the revision. An
OK thing if that would signified that no other person could possibly benefit
from that due to their own technoeconomic restrictions. And you,
obviously a very responsible and democratic person, you feel obliged to
mention all these to all of us. A solution? Ask ICANN to modify their
technoeconomic limitations. Other solution, tell to
all of us what exactly is misleading. It is a partial; solution, but an OK
one.
Another one, add periodic postings to all icann-eu related MLs in the world
stating the correct sentences.

Sincerely,
Constantine Chassapis