Re: [ga] Message from the Chair

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

First of all, before I begin my reply to you I feel I should appologise
first.  I forwarded your "message from the chair" to other newsgroups and
in so doing called you Roberto a Nazi Hitler.

However, calling you Hitler is a historical error.  Hitler had a plan and
you don't.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> it is time for me to take a decision about the rules for the management 
> of the mailing list.

No it's not - you don't have the authority to make a decision, and if you
do, you are put on notice that your actions are not on our behalf, but
instead reflect the needs of the Names Council and ICANN and the
DOC.  Don't forget that, the liability is theirs and not ours.

> The results of the poll are before us: they are, obviously, not giving a
>  clear indication. There is a slight majority of "yes", but not a clear 
> indication in either sense.

There are no results before us.  Let me assist you in voiding your
confusion.  The results of the poll were fudged.  I should know - I fudged
them.  Therefore there are no results to be considered here, there has
been no decision of any merit or value.  Your ability to use the poll to
rationalize any process or imposition of a rules set has been nullified.

This situation is much like an orgy video where the central character
needs viagra to make his point, unfortunately for him - his viagra was
stolen and the orgy has become a very limp affair.

> My reading of the results and of the discussion on this subject is that 
> the major concern is about the process: the main objections are not 
> about the need for rules, a fact that is widely acknowledged, but on 
> some aspects of this specific set of rules, and on the path that has 
> carried us here.

No it's not.  In Jeff Williams speak - your doing the fudge dance
here.  This is all about rules and choice.  That's been made clear to you
and the NC.

> On the other hand, it will be unwise to freeze the currently 
> unacceptable situation of "absence of rules" while we continue our 
> search for the "perfect set of rules". Deadlines are in front of us, the
>  agenda is full of items to be discussed, and we need to move forward.

No we don't need to move forward.  We need a set of rules we can
accept.  Several options have been made available here and those other
option were ignored.  If you act unilateraly without our support you are
imposing liability on behalf of your masters - I speak of ICANN and the
DOC.

> I have clearly stated before the election that my target was to have a 
> working GA, and in particular to give a voice to those who are not part 
> of any Constituency, and that therefore do not have any other forum for 
> presenting their views: I would not be acting in line with my proposals 
> of only one month ago if I let the debate continue further without 
> taking any immediate action.

You have failed.  Not once - but many times.  The NC had high hopes for
you and you failed.  We don't want you as our chair - you have no mandate
from the GA which would limit your liability or that of ICANN and the
DOC.  Any actions you take is as an agent of either the DOC or ICANN.

Do you understand the significance of this my little gato.

> While we debate on this otherwise legitimate question about the process,
>  and we try to perfect the proposal currently before us, decisions about
>  questions of substance are taken somewhere else.
> While we engage in endless discussion and flood with noise the only 
> forum where individuals can voice their opinions, the other components 
> of the complex Internet puzzle progress without us.

yada, yada, yada is all I hear coming from you.  remember - coverups
require stronger rationalizations then this.

> Therefore, we must adopt the set of rules that are before us as a first 
> step. We can rivisit the situation in the future, obviously, but we need
>  to start managing the list in a way that will reduce the noise and 
> recreate better conditions for the debate.
> 
> We will adopt the rules for a three-months period. I am confident that 
> the situation will change, and that the debate will be more productive, 
> without any of the much feared "censorships". In fact, the existence of 
> the ga-unfiltered list will give sufficient guarantees and visibility of
>  the "filters".

I'm not paying any attention to them.  I'm putting you on notice now and I
suggest you advise the DOC and ICANN accordingly.  Both parties are
legally liable for your actions and as their agent you have a feduciary
duty to report to them accordingly.

> 
> In this three-months timeframe we can surely define better rules and/or 
> propose alternative ones, but we must indeed lay down an action plan on 
> what we want to achieve, because the next big deadline, the ICANN 
> meeting in Cairo, is less than six weeks away.
> This is the challenge that we have before us.

The Cairo junket is meaningless.  It's noting more then ICANN theatre.  I
think we all understand this very well now.

> 
> If this operation will not work, and either the "filters" put in place 
> by the SAA will be proven to be "censoring" the participation, or if the
>  people that have abandoned the GA are not coming back (which means that
>  my analysis of the reasons of their quitting was incorrect), I will 
> draw the political consequence of the facts, and resign.

Resign now - it's less painful now.

> Back to the practical aspects, the first step is to appoint the SAA.
> 
> Please consider this message an official call for volounteers.

I nominate William X. Walsh for the position of SAA.  Mr. walsh is very
much like an autonotom and I feel he can carry through as an effective
SAA.  Mr. Walsh like any good lap dog will serve the undemocratic and
imperial ambitions of the Names Council without question.  And he will
continue to be faitful as long as you feed him right.  The only donwside
is that if you stop feeding him, he'll go rabid and bite you - like he did
to joop and the idno.

Regards
Joe