Re: [ga] Re: The position of the GA?

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

Danny and all assembly members,

DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

> Dear Jeff,
>
> anyone may participate in these discussions, and I have no objection to Kent
> Crispin's participation.

  On the DNSO GA and all of the sub lists as well as the recently formulated
"Task FOrce" lists participation is still restricted, as you well know.  So
I am a bit puzzled as to you questionable assertion to the contrary.  I
myself have several times tried to subscribe to several of the "Task Force"
Lists, and have yet to be able to participate openly and transparently.
I also share with you that I have not problem with Kent Crispins
"Participation".  However I do have a great concern as others have
also recently expressed in Kent's in any sort of a LEADERSHIP role.

>    Kent has presented well-drafted position papers
> to the ALSC and he has demonstrated the ability to propose solutions to
> problems.

  His recent position papers are of VERY questionable value as posted
to the ALSC, and have been admonished repeatedly as such.

>  You may disagree with his views, but at least his views are
> usually well-considered and are reasonably well articulated.

  I honestly and frankly question Kents views as being well considered
or well articulated.  I do find them to be his views and not broadly shared
as has been made clear for over 5 years now.  And I would add that
his views on membership to the At-Large or any public body dealing
with any Internet related issue has been pretty much as it has always
been.  The only difference, and very small it certainly is, is that he
as rehashed it in slightly different terms.

> We have an
> obligation to make sure that all views are properly represented, and I'm sure
> that Kent will make sure that minority opinions are reflected in any position
> paper that we put forth.

  Perhaps. And perhaps not.  If history is any guide, and I believe it is,
Kent is ONLY interested in HIS views, or having HIS views as being
the predominant ones being expressed.  Hence, as a leader, that
attitude is much less than optimum, and in what has already been
expressed recently yet again, not expectable.

>
>
> Let's set aside personal differences and focus on the task at hand.

  Indeed.  That is exactly what I am doing.  However it is not possible
in some situations given the repeated history, to separate personalities
and political behaviors from the issues at hand.  Erco, my previous
post on this thread.

>  Perhaps
> you could start this off by drafting a position paper on behalf of your own
> INEG membership.

  Good point.  We have done this before with a number of issues
in a open and transparent form on this GA Forum.  We shall if
given the opportunity and if we have a specific set of positions
on an issue, do so again.

>

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@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