[nc-org] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board conflict of interest on .org
firstname.lastname@example.org (Thu 05/16/02 at 01:22 AM -0500):
> Milton has had his facts corrected and has not come out to acknowledge so.
which fact would those be, alejandro? i won't reproduce his minimal
recitation of names, dates of events, and quotations, but i will note
that the only substantive revision of a 'fact' we've seen so far is
that of crocker's statement that spousal employment isn't mentioned
in the by-laws. he's right, it's not in the by-laws -- because it's
covered very explicitly in other binding documents.
> Funny that this should happen exactly when this constituency was making an
> attempt to form its own policy on conflicts of interest. Spanish speakers
> have a very low regard for the attitude of "lanza la piedra y esconde la
> mano", "throw the stone and hide the hand".
so why don't you show your hand and come out and plainly accuse MM
of using this as a red herring to obstruct an NCDNHS COI? or are
you insinuating that it is a broader conspiracy?
> The rest is vicious picking on people who are not even being addressed
> directly. Now that Dave has gotten you to your dictionary please look up
> "gavel", Spanish "picota" or "picota publica".
ICANN is a public organization, and this conversation is a public
conversation; everyone who's participated know that very well and,
i assume, knows further that the affected people are have been in-
formed about it. they are free to make their case here or in other
fora, such as ICANN watch, where the apparent facts were published.
NCDNHCers are far too experienced to expect ICANN's board or staff
to take this up proactively; and so, i suppose, the burden falls on
others to pursue this case in some forum. at this point, though, i
don't think many people who'd be inclined to *ask these questions*
-- which is a necessary step in an *inquiry* -- will find it easy
to summon the energy to do so. time and again we've seen how dili-
gently ICANN incumbents circle their wagons and use bureaucratic
procedure to bog down whatever doesn't suit them. and, of course,
rob blokzijl chairs ICANN's COI committee. even smoking guns don't
work in ICANN -- how much less so a curiosity borne of integrity.
> Of all members of this list I am particularly apalled that you would
> lend yourself to this revolting maneuver. Ted Byfield has made a posting
> that is beyond contempt and should have been your amber light to lift off
> the quagmire. I trust you will.
if your found my post to be beyond contempt, i'm inclined to in-
terpret that as an indication of how disastrously limited your
my questions remain. it seems unlikely that lynn blokzijl's object-
ive qualifications made her the best candidate in amsterdam for her
current position. however, i would be very pleased to be shown that
i am wrong to suspect something, and, further, will apologize be-
fore i am even asked to do so.