Re: [ga] Resignation of Alternate Chair

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

Patrick and all assembly members,

  The following comments that I have also reflect a number of
our members as well as a summary of others on this forum
as a critique of these belated comments from Patrick.
(Detailed comments below Patricks)

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 07:02:28 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2001 15:39:48 +1200, Joop Ternstra wrote:
>
> > >Our alt-Chair's absence, I believe, is due to illness. Therefore I keep
> > >encouraging Danny to appoint Chairs to some of the sublists to help him
> > >bringing order in the chaos.
> >
> > I am sorry to hear that.
> > I apologise for having thought that there might have been other reasons.
> > I hope Patrick will be healthy and participative soon.
>
> Hi Roberto
>
> Thank you for your kind comments about my health and this certainly requires
> urgent attention.  However, you are partly right that there are "other
> reasons".  One is the poor state of my personal finances.   Nevertheless
> my health problems are real and quite serious, I'm sorry to say.

  Indeed it is sad to hear of your state of affairs Patrick.  I hope
that your health and financial situation will improve in due course.

  Be this situations it may, some or you comments require me in my
capacity to address with all due consideration...

>
>
> More significantly, however, is the almost total inability of the GA to
> function.  This has many reasons which I have spelled out on a number of
> occasions.  Several of these factors have been raised in the two threads on
> the subject of the Chair's recall.  I really should not need to reiterate them
>
> here.

  The two individuals that seem to be the only ones publicly supporting
the recall of the Chair, have as has been on many occasions displayed,
seemingly based upon a personal dislike and vendetta for the current
duly elected chair.  As such it would seem that the predominance
of supporting posts for the current chair would render these two
individuals as behaving inappropriately and without merit.

>
>
> One is the attitude of the NC (as indicated by Danny).  Another is the
> desire by some well-known agitators to divert the process.  A third is the
> ineffective approach taken by Danny to solving these problems and, in
> particular, his lack of willingness to accept advice and input.

  I as well as a number of the GA members have and still do seem to
disagree with the evaluation that Danny has to the degree that you
indicate here has been a catalyst in the lack of the proper functions
as GA chair.  Al be it that I have on occasion disagreed, and strongly
in a few instance, as well as others, with some of his directions and
considerations, it is hardly reasonable to place blame for the noticeable
lack of productivity of the DNSO GA.  In fact, the NC and the
ICANN BOD and staff have routinely ignored to a great extent
many initiatives that the GA has tried to put forward.  Therefore
I cannot abide by your admonishment to this degree of Danny's
tenure thus far a chair.

>
>
> Where I have difficulty is in the inter-relationship of these factors.  The
> NC seems to be stuffing up and this, with the added complication of internal
> GA bickering, seems to drive Danny to a "leadership" role.  This in turn
> causes justified criticism which is pounced on, and escalated, by the
> agitators.

  Indeed there are a few agitators which most of the GA members
are aware of such as WXW and Kent Crispin.  Unfortunately every
forum associated with ICANN has these sorts of provocateurs of
agitation.  None the less, this should not, and by in large has not
been a overriding factor in the GA's lack of productivity.  Rather
the lack of funding has been the predominant factor instead.

>
>
> My own efforts to raise awareness (e.g. my comments about "red herings",
> diversionary tactics, the NC and mailing lists) just provides further
> ammunition leading to further diversions and biased commentary.

> And so it goes.

  Yes so it goes if you attach interests in biased commentary.  I frankly
do not in most instances as I have also observed many others of the
GA.

>
>
> In fact, it took a huge effort on my part to get the GA to agree, generally,
> to move procedural debate to the [ga-rules] mailing list.

  And these attempts a sub-lists have been sense and almost as soon as
they were started abandon, even though they were an interesting
attempt ot separate subject areas into separate discussions groups.
But they have failed, as they also split out the GA members and lacked
adequate open discourse practice as the current illegitimate rules
for the GA have yet to be resolved which that the current chair is
forced to deal with which he unfortunately inherited from the
previous "Appointed" chair, Harald.

>  I saw this as a
> sound attempt to solve the problem of diversionary tactics such as are still
> occuring.  As well, the DNSO Secretariat proved recalcitrant in the extreme
> and I have had no support from the GA Chair in overcoming this problem.
>
> One result is that the motion has not been put to a vote <sigh>.

  Many motions that have been put forth by GA members, which is
quite proper and reasonable have been denied a opportunity to be
voted upon even when seconded by a number of members.  Such
is the lack of support that the secretariat has provided.  This situation
increased when the $100k funding requested by the secretariat
was denied by the ICANN BoD, and the GA was unable to
devise a simple method to which alternative funding could be
obtained, all be it and a much lesser amount, be provided
for the secretariat function which I and others felt should be
a funded function.

>
>
> At least I worked to obtain consensus.  However none of Danny's unilateral
> decisions have got of the ground.  I will not bore you with detailing them.

  I am sure you won't "Bore" us.  As to a degree this statement is
without merit.

>
>
> There is also a serious problem in the ability of the list monitors to
> perform their work and this has led to several resignations.  You should be
> aware that one of Danny's decisions was to sack me as list monitor because
> of my comments about the lack of integrity shown by Elisabeth Porteneuve
> and Philip Sheppard.  I saw that as quite unreal and pathetic.

  I agreed with Dannys action here.  I believe that a number of others
called for your resignation as the archives shoe clearly.  Ergo, it was
not ONLY or even predominantly because of your position towards
Elisabeth and Phillip that lead to Danny's decision as you well know.
Ergo I find this statement a bit disingenuous at best, Patrick.  Of course
this too is well documented within the archives of the DNSO GA.

>
>
> Interestingly William X. Walsh argues that he can say what he likes about
> the Chair or the Alt Chair but should we return the favour he will lodge a
> formal complaint to [ga-abuse].

  Yes you are quite right here.  WXW has been a very abusive and
disruptive influence upon some within this assembly.  He also seems
to have some support within the NC for his actions, which seems
a bit disgusting to say the least.  However we as GA members must
rise above such pandering's from disrupters and disruptive behavior
or we are not capable or worthy of being an assembly at all.

> He will then complain bitterly about abuse
> of power should the list monitors not uphold his one-eyed views.
>
> None of this is designed to advance the process constructively.  I will
> remind participants of my post "They're Coming To Take Me Away.  Ha Ha."
>
> Of course, even those who seemed to support my efforts have truly put little
> effort into making them work.

  Work requires payment.  Without funding, such work as is required
will likely fizzle out in short order...

>  One example is the Best Practices which its
> proponents argued did not need to be adopted in a formal sense.  Hence the
> recent comments on this list about a lack of process.

  Lack of process is paramount.  Without good process no good
product can be expected.

>
>
> My view is clear.  Unless the members of the GA genuinely work towards a
> co-operative approach then the whole framework is irrelevant.

  Agreed.  However this does not mean that variance of opinion and
a choice of initiatives that are opposed to one another cannot be
or should not be available by which the GA members can decide upon.

>  Others have
> expressed the view that I am wasting my time because the framework is a sham
> anyway.  I appreciate that view but was determined to give it my best shot.

  We thank you for you efforts.  Unfortunately they came up short of
adequate.  We all a t one time or another face such challenges that
we are not or do not perform adequately.  It is commonly known
as the Peter Principal.

>
>
> All I wanted to do was to develop just ONE single policy outcome which would
> make its way though the formal process to the ICANN Board.  That would be a
> test of their goodwill @!!  I really was acting in the best interests of the
> GA.

  I am sure that we appreciate you efforts.  It is unfortunate that they were
not predominantly shared by the majority of the GA members.

>
>
> The truth is that I now realise that this is impossible particularly since I
> do not have the support of several key participants in the official process.
> I name these as Danny Younger, Philip Sheppard and Elisabeth Porteneuve.

  Phillip, Elisabeth and Danny's support is not necessary if your initiatives
have the support of the GA members in a majority.  Your arguments and
methods were the death nil of your own efforts.

>
>
> It is with regret, therefore, that I hereby resign as Alternate Chair of the
> General Assembly.

  It is a good thing that at this juncture and with your stated physical and
financial problems that you wisely decided all be it belated, that you
resign.

>
>
> Thank you for your trust.  I am truly sorry that I could not achieve the
> impossible.

  As I learned in the US Marine Corps, "The difficult we do immediately,
the impossible just takes a little bit longer"!  >;)  Long live impossible
challenges!

>
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

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