Re: [ga] Two things troubling me with the GA Chair elections...

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

Mark and all DNSO'ers,

Mark C. Langston wrote:

> Two things started bothering me this morning regarding the current
> GA Chair elections:

  Only two sir?  Amazing!  :)  I see many others...

>
>
> 1)  The NC and officers of the DNSO are being allowed to vote -- something
>    that Caroline Chicoine changed the voting procedures to allow at the
>    very last minute.
>    (http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc03/msg00173.html).

  Very observant and accurate point Mark.  I don't see a problem with
the DNSO officers being allowed to vote, after all they are stakeholders
too.  I do see that doing this at the last moment again points out clearly
that this process is abominable and cannot be considered creditable
or legitimate.  This is only one example...

>
>
>    Elizabeth Porteneuve, the person responsible for the voting rules and
>    the Secretariat for the DNSO, has officially voiced support for a
>    candidate, as has Ken Stubbs, one of the Registrars NC members.

  Well, well, this of course should come as no surprise, should it Mark?
Given Mr. Stubbs past behavior and public statements and Ms. Porteneuve's
false statements towards active participants, I for one am not surprised in
the
least!  A sad commentary and example both of these people have presented
the DNSO.  Of course, I also don't know under what reasonable authority
either of them for their illegitimate current positions either, given the
SELECTIVE CENSORSHIP that Ms. Porteneuve has on her own accord
imposed upon the DNSO Mailing list in a vain attempt to disenfranchise
or disinclude stakeholders from participating, and Mr. Stubbs, obvious
rancor towards our spokesman.  One should therefore have no doubt
as to their motivations...

>
>
>    While I do believe the NC members have a right to participate in the
>    GA, I find it improper that they be allowed to influence a decision
>    on which they have final say.

  I would agree, but the game is rigged, my friend.  We must together change
this or the results could be devastating.

>
>
> 2) Discussions among the NC made it clear that they would not be willing
>    to accept a result in which only one or two candidates were put forth
>    for their selection.  Yet clearly, this is what's about to happen.

  Yes clearly it is.  And again pointing up the illegitimacy of the process.

>
>    I find it interesting that the NC, who feared we might give them
>    no choice in the matter, is now content to sit back and let the
>    process continue as long as their "choice" is a candidate for which
>    their own members have voiced support.

  Yes, a nice little bit of rigging I would say...

>
>
> Am I alleging misconduct?  No;  at least, not as such.  But I must
> say that I find this improper.

  Well I believe that the evidence is fairly overwhelming that misconduct
is, and has been occurring from what I have read, heard, and seen.

>
>
> --
> Mark C. Langston
> mark@bitshift.org
> Systems Admin
> San Jose, CA

Bob Davis...

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html