[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] [idno] Motion under RRP 4.11.1 (fwd)
I think the idno is soon to be in an excellent position to do some
work. The bad influence of William X. Walsh is about to be booted as
a very userUNfriendly person.
I have mixed feelings about this, and would welcome some input on this
external to the IDNO.
It's a sad day when Walsh get Xed.
Regards
Joe Baptista
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000 00:46:29 -0800
From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: IDNO <idno-discuss@idno.org>
Subject: [idno] Motion under RRP 4.11.1
Honored audience and fellow members of the IDNO,
Although it is not quite ratified yet, I make this motion under RRP 4.11.1,
as a founding member, and former member of the first Steering Committee, of
the IDNO.
I make the motion to permanently expell a fellow founding member, William X.
Walsh from these procedings and the IDNO, under RRP procedure 4.11.2 and
4.11.3. It saddens me to make this motion. However, it has become clear that
William's only reason for being here is to disrupt this assembly. I present
partial evidence below. More evidence is available on the archives.
The mechanism for this disruption is inflammatory commentary, libelous and
slanderous statements, personal invective, and suborning personal attacks by
others. Although his long-term target is Joop Teernstra, others have fallen
under the glare of his viscious attack. In addition, William has more than
twice declared openly that he does not feel that he has to follow the rules
that this assembly put forth and he scorns the authority of the duely
elected chairman of this assembly. This more than illustrates William's
contempt for this organization, its goals, and its members.
I submit that, with the continuing disruption of this person, the IDNO
cannot move forward with any effort towards self-organization. If the IDNO
is to survive then it must cast out this disruptive influence, by name of
William X. Walsh, whom is anything but "userfriendly".
In order to proceed, one must first have order. We should grant William his
unspoken wish and remove him from any further involvement in the IDNO. He
will then be no longer troubled by actions of the chair, or other members of
this assembly.
I further motion that because this is the first time this clause is invoked,
and mitgated by the fact that it has not yet been ratified by the entire
assembly, that RRP 4.11.4 not be invoked, in favor of RRP 4.11.3. That this
matter be decided by the entire assembly.
===========================================
R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
Colorado Springs, Colorado - Livermore, California.
Preliminary Evidence:
=====================================================
> Behalf Of William X. Walsh
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 8:21 PM
>
> On 03-Mar-2000 Dinesh Nair wrote:
> > Anarchy is not the way to go, we are
> > aiming for consensual democracy here in the interests of flexibility and
> > fairness.
> As such, Dinesh, I state again, I have no intent of abiding
> Joop's list rules
> and will not recognize any action taken under them. I'd advice you not to
> invoke them, for the sake of this organization's ability to
> continue conducting
> business.
On 02-Mar-2000 Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> Are you making a formal motion to eliminate the rules as they stand?
>
> If not, are you stating that you willfully chose not to abide by those
> rules?
>
> The choices are; Follow the rules, or try to change them. There is no
third
> alternative.
You think so?
On 01-Mar-2000 Dominic Baron wrote:
>
> Impressed by Mr Crispin's eminently sensible suggestion, I hereby
> nominate Mr Joop Teernstra as the CA/IDNO spokesman to attend the
> forthcoming ICANN Conference in Cairo.
Gee, what a surprise.
I wonder if he can refrain from refering to his own wants as those of the
IDNO
this time. Apparently he couldn't in Santiago. Everyone commented how it
was
always what "he wanted" when he would speak, and how he nearly blew his top
when people disagreed with him and he couldn't control how things were being
presented.
If there was ever a good example of how his control complex gets in the way,
his attitude at Santiago was a perfect one.
Also, what a perfect way to seal the fate of the IDNO. Send Joop.
[snip]
I ask all of you to forgive me for being so blunt here, but all I can say to
that is : "Go to hell."
[snip]
For them, they can have my contempt.
On 25-Feb-2000 Matthew Enger wrote:
> I was wondering, since the list is online why I could never find my self
> on it, then I took another look.
>
> "Mark Measday, Matthew Anger, "
>
> Can't anyone spell my name right, it's been correct on all MY emails and
> on my application form. It's Matthew ENGER.
>
Matthew, this is the site managed by someone who can't figure out how to
setup
a virtual server under IIS. What do you expect?
---
The IDNO is nothing more than a silly game at this point. It's time to move
forward with another approach.
But I am serious and very interested in doing things for domain owners. It
is
one of the main reasons I work on my dnspolicy.net website. So I'm asking,
what do you, as a domain owner, want? What information would it help you to
have at your fingertips?
As individuals, working together, we do not have to be bound by the
excessive
restrictions placed on us by the "ruling Junta" of the IDNO. So let's show
we
can move beyond it, and work for something thats actually productive. We've
seen that reforming the IDNO is not productive, nor is it acheivable. So
let's
use our coming together here for what WE as a group want to do.
---
Since the IDNO cannot and will not be taken seriously in its current state,
only a spokesperson who is not and cannot be serious would be appropriate.
Therefore I, in all seriousness, nominate our esteemed member Joe Baptista.
The state this organization is in, there is no more fitting spokesperson.
I ask for an immediate second.
On 28-Feb-2000 Karl E. Peters wrote:
> Dear Joop and CA/IDNO,
> It is not the "no" vote that would deny democratic rights to the full
> membership. It is the arbitrary choice to hold the decision on the list
only.
> I
> saw no vote of any group that decided against the full membership voting
on
> this
> issue. It just had the misfortune to be considered a "LAM" when it was
really
> a
> motion to the CA/IDNO as a whole. Perhaps we need a distinction here
between
> what is LAM and what is wider and deeper in scope so as to avoid this
> quandary
> in the future.
>
It's not likely that the participants would have received a fair description
of
the choices anyway.
And besides, holding the vote on the list at least prevents suspicious large
number of votes that always seems to appear at the last minute if Joop's
choice
is losing.
_______________________________________________
Idno-discuss mailing list
Idno-discuss@idno.org
http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/mailman/listinfo/idno-discuss
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html