Re: [ga] Re: (6) What's In It For Me? - Jeff Williams

[Eric Dierker <Eric@hi-tek.com>]

Colleagues,

Maybe this will help to understand the dichotomy between freedom of speech and order. Bill
has one perspective and i another, eh somewhere in between they shall meet.

It is neither my habit nor custom to include past posts and thereby take up space in a full
reply.  But Mr. Walsh, in keeping with my position that it is not the man but the idea that
is important, I will fully respond because your questions deserve response because they are
important to all members. I also thank you for the effort you put into this assembly
although we normally disagree on perspective but not conclusion.

>
> It looks just fine.  No it does not look bad.  We have rules, they are
> enforced, and if someone has a problem, they can appeal that decision
> to the chair.
>
> The rules are there to prevent people participating under various
> pseudonyms, but they do NOT prevent anonymous participation.  Jeff's
> real identity is not known, but that alone isn't reason, under the
> rules, to ban him from the list.  When he was unable to provide any
> evidence that he was not distinct from the many personalities commonly
> known be other aliases of his, those aliases were removed.
>
> The other rule is there to protect civil discourse.
>
> >     Here is a real problem that we should all take note of;  Mr. Corliss's posts that
> > should have been private were a horrible lack of decorum.  I believe it was an
> > accident that he GAed all those privates but nonetheless he did it.
>
> It was not an accident, but no action was taken against him.  What are
> you complaining about with regard to this?
>
> >     3.      I do not need to tell anyone involved here that an Alternative chair
> > should not be given the power to dispose of one man's opinion, Especially if for his
> > livelihood he is hired by someone like Hi-Tek or Cisco. That makes us look really bad,
> > i mean really bad.
>
> And you can provide evidence that this is how the rules are being
> used?

>
> Here the point is missed and stop acting like you do not get it.   It looks really bad,
> let me repeat it looks really bad, can you get it through your head it matters how it
> looks. By goodness you have to get it, it does matter to the world and Senators, and DOC
> that it looks so bad.  If you cannot understand this concept then those who agree with me
> will and those who do not will not.

We may act a certain way but showing off arrogance does not help our cause.

>
> I didn't think so.
>
> The rules are in place.  If, by some very unlikely turn of events, you
> are elected to chair or alternate chair, it is your duty to enforce
> those rules, as adopted by the GA.  If you are indicating you would
> refuse to do so, then you should go ahead and recuse yourself.
>
>

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion Bill but the way you express is hurts our cause
in legitimizing ICANN.  I advocated change Bill, read a civics book.

> --
> Best regards,
>  William                           mailto:william@userfriendly.com

At this point I would rely on the alternate chair position that I am not eligible to run
for chair due to lack of endorsements.  I defer, yet will cooperate with Ms. Joanna in that
regard, she seems to have a far better handle on that than do we.
    That brings us to the alternate chair and appeal to the chair.  That is not good enough.
Balance is where it is at.  If the chairs are held by bottom up dudes like myself I want
Cisco dudes like Harald counter balancing that, that is why the committee.  I am not
whining, and to heck with Jeff, he is a man who can take what was given under existing
rules. Just like you on your penalties. If anyone has a problem with that read Platos'
Republic and then leave, I take liberty Sotiris.
    I am suggesting a manner in which it is a little more palatable for the world so that we
gain some credibility.
    I suppose in some way I am saying that if I were chair, due process would be a bigger
part of the picture, and it would, but I think that is moot.
    Harshness dealt with unfairness is the perpetuation of bad.  Frustration dealt with
tolerance is the perpetuation of solution. And you can quote that, for free.

sincerely,

--
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