Re: [ga] Re: More BC Shenanigans - Special attention Peter De Blanc

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Peter and all assembly members,

  If you are speaking personally and directing you personal speaking
to Danny why did you find it necessary to post it to the DNSO GA list?
Don't you think it would have been better to send this response
privately to Danny?  I believe it would....
(More comments and observations to your comments below)

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Danny:
>
> ( In this posting I am speaking personally )
>
> Your agenda would be better served by being more diplomatic, and
> separating fact from speculation and "broad-brush" name calling.

  I don't think anything Danny said was speculation.  Rather I believe,
as do our members, that Danny was speaking from public knowledge
as a one time member of the BC, and through his observations as
such.

  I rather think that possibly you are attempting to defend indirectly, the
actions of a few on the BC for reason or reasons unknown, but not
all together unexpected.

>
>
> Also, I am unclear about whether you are making this, and other recent
> postings as GA chair, or as an individual.

  It would seem obvious to me, and I gather others, that Danny was making
his observations to the GA as the chair.  I am glad that he did so.

>
>
> I appreciated your initial enthusiasm when you gained the chair of trhe
> GA. Your call to the Names Council `to "parcel out some of the work" to
> the GA was eloquent and passionate. I really felt a desire to be
> supportive of your new leadership.
>
> Now, I am starting to be disappointed by your lack of objectivity and
> diplomacy. The chair is supposed to facilitate consensus building, and
> be a mediator and negotiator of positions.

  A chair is also supposed to be as informative as possible as well, which
Danny has done particularly well.  His post (See below) is not and exception

to doing so.  Proper diplomacy is in the eye and ear of the beholder,
Peter.  It is not a "Set in stone" or "Lock step" behavior.  To elude
that it is, is frankly inconsiderate and sometimes not appropriate.  This
response of yours is one of those times where suggesting that a
particular diplomatic preference is not appropriate.

>
>
> You are not doing that anymore.

  Yes in this instance, thankfully Danny is not!

>
>
> It makes me sad.

  Consider taking a prozac!  Or perhaps, get over it on your own.

>
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of
> DannyYounger@cs.com
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 9:01 AM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Cc: cgomes@verisign.com; jefsey@wanadoo.fr; bmjames@swbell.net
> Subject: [ga] Re: More BC Shenanigans
>
> Dear Chuck,
>
> Part of the problem within the BC is that decisions are made without the
>
> benefit of a vote of the membership.   For example, on the "Issue
> Management
> Procedures" page of the BC website it states:
>
> "Solidarity:
> BC members shall abide by approved positions and the BC representatives
> to
> the Names Council will be required to support such positions en bloc."
>
> There was never a vote taken on this... and even if a vote were to be
> taken,
> it would not be representative of the business community as the voice of
>
> small business is not to be heard within the Business Constituency.
>
> If the BC Charter is to be re-drafted, one NC member should always
> represent
> small business, another medium-sized businesses, and the other large
> business.  This would be entirely appropriate as small and medium-sized
> businesses account for more than two-thirds of all domain name
> registrations.
>
>
> Unfortunately, the BC will never reform itself into anything more than a
>
> power-bloc that promotes the interests of Telcoms and intellectual
> property
> groups.  A few active members dominate the constituency, and have every
> reason to continue abusing their power to the detriment of the rest of
> the
> business community.
>
> During the entire time that I was subscribed to the BC mailing list, I
> never
> received one email from anyone other than Phil Sheppard, Marilyn Cade or
> the
> BC Secretariat.  There is no dialogue amongst the current members
> because
> they can't be bothered to participate.  Every three months they are
> afforded
> the opportunity for a business-paid junket to an exotic corner of the
> world,
> and that is the full extent of their involvement.
>
> When the BC reps claim that they are in consultation with the
> membership,
> they are only in consultation with themselves.  There is certainly no
> dialogue on the BC list (which, of course, is one of the reasons why it
> is
> not publicly archived).   The constituency is a sham.  It is a vertiable
>
> clone of the Intellectual Property constituency, and in truth, those two
>
> groups should be merged as they are nothing more than two sides of the
> same
> coin.
>
> While the membership roster of constituencies like the Non-Commercial
> continues to grow at a steady pace due to ongoing efforts at outreach,
> the
> membership roster of the BC shrinks rapidly.  There is no outreach, only
>
> lip-service paid to the need to involve small businesses.
>
> It is no wonder that in this environment, no small business seeks to be
> associated with the BC.  There is no possibility of involvement if small
>
> business concerns can routinely be voted down "en bloc".
>
> The BC is a cabal, not a constituency.  There have been a sufficient
> number
> of Charter violations to warrant revoking their membership in the DNSO
> until
> such time as the deficiencies are cured, and there are certainly
> questions
> with respect to lost paperwork and their handling of finances that would
>
> probably warrant an audit.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members 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:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html