RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:ga_list@hotmail.com]
|> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 5:29 PM
|> To: dassa@dhs.org; ga@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga] Funding of ICANN Board candidate travel expenses
|>
|>
|> Dassa,
|>
|> >
|> >As this relates directly to Joops attendance as a candidate I
would
|> >consider the relevance obvious.  Joop may do some good work at
times
|> >but the blunders, falsehoods and misrepresentations must not be
|> >overlooked either.
|>
|> "As a candidate"?!?!?

As a nominee for the IDN TF if you prefer.

|> Anyway, there are two separate issues here, one being the funding
by
|> Salzburg Seminar to the individual Joop, and one the
|> representativity of Joop as spokesperson of IDNO.

No, you are simplifying and ignoring the more immediate issues.  The
real issue is honesty and integrity.  I have no issue with the funding
being provided but how a person represents themselves in both formal
and informal communications is of real concern.  The GA should be
concerned about how any nominee conducts themselves and the fact a
person misrepresents themselves.  This issue is not about the IDNO.

|> I would argue that the latter is strictly an IDNO internal matter,
and
|> should be debated elsewhere, IMHO. Or do we want to start
discussing here
|> about how representative of all their respective
|> organizations are all the
|> participants in this process?

When false statements are made it is a matter for the GA to consider.
We operate on a basic level of trust.  If it is shown a member
misrepresents themselves and makes false statements it should be known
within the GA.

|> About the former, I would suggest you check the rules of the game
at
|> http://www.icann.salzburgseminar.org/guidelines.htm.
|> Among other things, you will see:
|> "You or your organization must represent a significant constituency
within
|> the Internet community that will contribute to ICANN's mission and
deliberations."
|> It nowhere sais that you have to be the officially designated
spokesperson
|> of the member of the organization that is in turn a member
|> of NonCom. Hence the point of yours (and WXW) is moot.

The point is about honesty, false representation and integrity.  An
issue you have deliberatly avoided, instead attempting to denote the
issue as being related to external organisations.

|> But even if this was the case, the problem would be an internal
matter of
|> the constituency NCDNHC, as they could argue that funding Joop will
leave
|> less funds for other NonCom people. From our (GA) POV what matters
is that
|> one of the persons that are more active on this list got some
funding to
|> participate and bring some of the ideas circulated here.

No, sweeping such matters under the rug doesn't make them go away.  If
the GA wants to be known as a place a person can say, do and represent
themselves as anything they like, then the GA will fail.  I'm happy if
Joop gets funding, as I would for any person who wishes to attend.
What does concern me is that someone associated with and possibly
representing the GA at some future point would make false statements
and misrepresent themselves to other related organisations.

I care about who may represent me.  I do not like dishonesty in any
form.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.



--
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