RE: [wg-review] reporting

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Considering that this review is restricted to the DNSO, ICANN staffing isn't
pertinent. DNSO staffing is and should probably be covered in the "funding"
phase of this process.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eric Dierker [mailto:ERIC@HI-TEK.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 1:34 PM
> To: Greg Burton
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] reporting
> 
> 
> Greg,
> 
> Your analysis of what you reported to us yesterday is even 
> more generous than
> mine.
> 
> Sometimes negligence does amount to intentional misconduct, 
> and we are tasked
> with evaluating processes as they existed up until this time 
> and sometimes what
> is wrong with the process is the people running it.  To make 
> no quality
> statement about the horrible failure to follow through on a 
> routine assignment
> of labor would not be fair.  So I address this point. Whos job was it?
> 
> Can we be supplied with the chart of the complete staffing of 
> ICANN from
> janitor to CEO?  The existance of staffing is completely left 
> out of your
> report.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Greg Burton wrote:
> 
> > At 11:58 AM 1/31/01, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > >1/31/01 10:16:56 AM, Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM> wrote:
> > >
> > > >I do not want to suggest any impropriety on behalf of 
> Ms. Swineheart for
> > > >actions taken before, or her current intentions. But I do want to
> > > >comment that her most recent post to this WG was a 
> prompt response,
> > > >clear and unambiguous.
> >
> > It was indeed.
> >
> > >This WG must disassociate itself from Ms Swineheart's 
> "reports" and if
> > >need be, from
> > >Ms. Swineheart herself.  Her agenda is clear.  Please read 
> Greg Burton's
> > >painfully
> > >reconstructed Backround of the DNSO review Process.  If 
> that doesn't make
> > >things
> > >patently clear... I am afraid nothing will.
> >
> > If you're reading that timeline as an indictment of ANYONE, 
> particularly
> > Ms. Swinehart, you are reading more into it than I 
> intended. I believe the
> > timeline shows that the NC made several mistakes, but the 
> point of the
> > exercise was to show where the mistakes are, NOT to ascribe 
> any agenda or
> > cast blame on anyone.
> >
> > Hopefully, that's clear.
> >
> > Less heat and more light,
> > Greg
> >
> > sidna@feedwriter.com
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html