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

[Dan Steinberg <synthesis@videotron.ca>]

tell me please? why would we all care if he did or he did not?
does it matter what people do in order to draft a motion? is it even
newsworthy?

t byfield wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 
Dan Steinberg

SYNTHESIS:Law & Technology
35, du Ravin		phone: (613) 794-5356
Chelsea, Quebec		fax:   (819) 827-4398
J9B 1N1                 e-mail:synthesis@videotron.ca
--
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