[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga] Re: [IFWP] IDNO At large membership
- To: General Assembly of the DNSO <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: [ga] Re: [IFWP] IDNO At large membership
- From: "William X. Walsh" <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 02:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
- In-Reply-To: <380D1C8B.A9A69C9D@ix.netcom.com>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 20-Oct-99 Jeff Williams wrote:
> Joe and all,
> In many ways I think that Joe here is right. As I suggested
> the IDNO first was conceived I recommended in part that growing
> number of members should be a top priority. It seems that that
> recommendation was not shared amongst it's "Founders".
> What has been predominant is the "I WANT A BIGGER COOKIE"
> syndrome and the direct democratic vs representative democratic
> structure of the IDNO. Most of this brought on by William Walsh
> and some of his errant followers. This has been very detrimental
> to the cause of the IDNO and that is a shame indeed.
Kind hard for this to stand up to the facts, when I am the only
member who has specifically recused himself from standing for
election to any executive position within the IDNO.
So your comments here, once again, do not stand up to the Facts,
which are available for anyone to read in the IDNO list archives.
The real culprit is clear. The one person who absolutely refuses
to let go of any level of control, and who fights any attempt to
remove any area of his control, and attacks those who suggest that
I find it particularly amusing his comments to ICANN about their
member removal clause, and how due process must be followed, but he
is the one who supported removal of at least 4 people by his simple
decision to do so. And one of those was barely over a month ago.
This person wants due process, except when it might compromise his
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: email@example.com Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/