Re: [ga] Lies, damned lies, and votes.

[t byfield <tbyfield@panix.com>]

roessler@does-not-exist.org (Fri 05/24/02 at 11:59 AM +0200):

> Note how the motion which drew fewer "yes" votes is promoted as the  
> "most important" one in James Love's message to random-bits. 
> ICANNwatch editor Ted Byfield even goes a step further: In his 
> ICANNwatch piece at  
> <http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=759>, he does not even  
> mention motion 2.

the response i just published on ICANN watch is below.

since you're striking the heroic posture of a paragon of honesty,
thomas, let me ask you this: did you conspire -- by which i mean
engage in private, coordinated actions whose basic nature was not
disclosed to all affected -- with alexander to develop the second 
motion and/or put it on the same ballot in order to defeat jamie's 
motion? if so, that's fine with me: politics, after all, is made 
of human lives. but so is journalism. 

cheers,
t
-

   thomas-- 
   
   please re-read my second paragraph, and please notice as well
   that i provided a link to the vote results announcement. that's a
   subtle way of saying: *check the facts yourself.*
   
   i wrote about the **one** motion because that's the one i think is
   most significant. the second motion was, in my view, not only
   much less significant but also deeply intertwingled with the
   slapstick style with which you, as GA chair, oversaw the whole
   affair.
   
   as you may remember, you denounced the first motion and
   obstructed in numerous ways. but then -- after the GA alternate
   chair introduced the second motion -- you suddenly became much
   more amenable to a vote. at the time, the GA alt chair wrote[1]: "My
   personal opinion is that the two are indeed conflicting motions."
   and you yourself wrote[2]:
   
             [1] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01115.html
             [2] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg01087.html
   
        Since the objective of this election is to have one resolution in
        the end, I have added the rule that the resolution which receives
        most "yes" votes is the one we consider the ultimate outcome of
        the vote. 
   
        If you folks want to go without this addition, the question would
        have to be: "Which resolution do you want to have?" The three
        mutually exclusive answers would be: James' resolution,
        Alexander's resolution, no resolution at all.
   
   but rather than get into all this byzantiniana, i thought i'd
   merely doff my hat at it by citing the charges and countercharges
   hurled back and forth.
   
   but since you've called me a 'liar' for omitting explicit mention
   your effort to torpedo jamie's motion, i guess i'll explicitly
   mention it.
   
   it would be churlish of me to downgrade my assessment of your
   work because you called me a name, but there's one remark i'll
   modify. in my article, i cited the fact that jamie's motion
   passed as redounding to your credit. perhaps it would have been
   more to the point to say that it redounds to the credit of the GA
   members who pursued a course they believe in despite your
   vigorous efforts.

--
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