Re: [ga] theories on the GA Chair and Alt-Chair obstructionist behavior - The Rebid vote

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

Eric and all assembly members,

  I changed the Subject line to better fit your very good and pointed
questions..
( More comments and/or observations below Erics )

eric@hi-tek.com wrote:

> It is a blatant and obvious truth that ASTR tried and may well have
> succeeded in screwing up the vote for the rebid process.

  Indeed they may have.  This is indeed disingenuous and/or obstructionist

behavior towards the GA members as others have already pointed out.
However I am not surprised as far as the Chair is concerned...

>
>
> What I want to know are theories as to why they did that.

  I have no theories.  I do have observations by which to guide me
in my own self determination as to why.
1.) Thomas Rossler the present elected chair of the DNSO GA
      does not want as he himself has stated to see the GA engage
      in making policy decisions by it's members on any issues.
      It is obvious to me that he does specifically not want the GA
     members to take any votes on any issues, motions, or resolutions
     that he himself has not agreed with in detail.

2.) The Chair seems not to believe in many instances that GA members
     are capable of understanding or determining DNSO related issues and
     therefore needs his and/or the Alt-Chair's council on any such
issues.

3.) Simply a huge ego problem...

>
>
> They did not answer WXW on his request for a scope question.

  They, Thomas and Alexander, did not understand the question...

>
>
> They did not cooperage with the Secretariat.

  No idea here.  Seems this may have been a communication problem
of some sort.

>
>
> They created confusion.

  This was obviously purposeful from both Thomas's and especially
Alexanders comments and interdiction tactic with a competing
and watered down motion to Jamie's Rebid motion...

>
>
> They avoided and created procedure

  They didn't like the present procedure.

>
>
> They objected to the vote in the first place.

  Obviously because both did not like the implications that may
effect in particular Alexanders "Study" on ICANN...

>
>
> they did not adopt and implement bast practices.

  You mean "Best Practices".  Well, those were never voted
upon by the members when they were introduced, although
such a vote was requested at the time under Danny's tenure...

>
>
> They blocked this vote at every turn.

  See above...

>
>
> What their reason for doing so, and why did you who did vote for them?

  I didn't vote for them...  I already knew and warned at the time what
the GA members could expect...

>
>
> As a student of humanity and philosophy I would love to know this
> thinking.
>
> But what I really want to know is if they win with this - WHY?

  The answer is closing the circle.  It is because they were trying
purposefully to be confusing to the GA members as much as possible..

>
>
> Very Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes 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:  972-244-3801 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