Re: [ga] Reply to William

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

Danny,

I am glad to see you try and justify your positions.  And I look forward
to seeing
you in Sweden. I only wish you the best.

I am very sorry to hear of the loss of ICANN's status with the DoC and
only hope
that it's replacement does a little better.

Sincerely,

Jeff Williams wrote:

> Danny and all assembly members,
>
> babybows.com wrote:
>
> > Hello William,
> >
> > I appreciate the fact that you have such strong opinions about what one
> > should expect from a real Chair.  It would have been nice to have seen you
> > vie for this elected position, but I suppose that it is human nature that
> > some in this world are more comfortable remaining on the sidelines as
> > critics.  This too is acceptable.  I usually rely on a critic's review when
> > I decide if a particular restaurant is worth frequenting, or if a movie
> > warrants being seen.
>
>   Interesting response here Danny.  It seems a bit off base however, due to
> the facts related by WXW in his earlier post regarding the agenda driven
> approach to the Chair and Alt-Chair's behavior, which has now become
> obvious.  As such, it would hardly be deemed appropriate I would guess
> from the GA members given the falling off of posts to the list sense earlier
> today.  However possibly this is the desired response that you and Patrick
> have in mind.  If so, it would therefore seem obvious that discussion is
> purposefully being discouraged which gains not headway towards solutions
> of consensus on issues before this assembly...  A shame to be sure.
>
> >
> >
> > Over the course of time, one gets to know whether a particular critic is
> > worth listening to.  I encourage you to continue criticizing whenever you
> > deem it appropriate to do so.  Only time, and your peers, will judge whether
> > your criticism is apt or misplaced.
>
>   Indeed this is so.  However a person with an open mind will be deligent
> in listening to anyone's posts or ideas put forth of a forum of this kind
> regardless of their particular list behavior.  To do otherwise would indicate
> that who's who it more important than what's what.  I am not particularly
> fond of WXW, however I always read his post diligently and with as much
> interest as anyone's.  I afford the same courtesy for every member of this
> assembly.  It is a shame that you or anyone would suggest otherwise,
> and does not show good faith as well.  :(
>
> >
> >
> > Although you have taken issue with my "agenda", I will certainly endeavor to
> > continue to promote focused discussions within our new mailing lists (this
> > is, after all, a good method to coordinate consensus, something that I
> > believe that you said a Chair should be doing).  I have noted with some
> > satisfaction that you have availed yourself of the opportunity to post on
> > the ga-roots list (at least sixteen times by my last count), and I am
> > pleased to see that you share the opinions of others on the ga-list (that
> > these are individuals that would prefer to work outside of the framework of
> > the DNSO on other mailing lists is another matter entirely).
>
>   If these new lists are outside the framework of the DNSO, how than did the
> recent announcement of banned members of the DNSO GA list migrate over
> to these new lists that are again, outside of the framework of the DNSO?
> Please advise....
>
> >
> >
> > Perhaps you would also like to post your thoughts regarding rules,
> > procedures and policies to the ga-int list where we can focus upon the
> > merits of your comments.  Six new lists do provide an opportunity for those
> > with a proclivity to post often to have their comments noted regularly.  We
> > have made it possible for you to post your thoughts as often as 35 times a
> > day (as long as posts are limited to 5 per day per list).  I would have
> > thought that you would have been appreciative of our efforts to offer you an
> > increased opportunity for substantive dialogue...
>
>   Well which is it Danny?  35 per day or 5 per day on these new lists to which
> you refer?  Which is it, are these new lists outside of the framework of the
> DNSO or not?  Again Please advise...
>
> >
> >
> > As we move forward towards the Stockholm meeting, we will need to determine
> > the "agenda" for the GA.  I would like to invite you to share with us your
> > thoughts on what that agenda should be.  As always, I look forward to your
> > comments.
>
>   Nice ending.  However you comments above seem to belie you true
> intentions in this ending....
>
> >
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Danny
> >
> > --
> > 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 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-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