I don't think you are anything, in fact my original response didn't quote you and I don't understand why you responded in that hostile way. If someone asked a question and another person answers it, who are you to tell someone to not do so? Seriously, I want to know who you think you are. Ron |
| (If you think I'm from the Corporate Dark Side, you've clearly never been to an ICANN meeting -- and the public forum in particular -- at any time between 1998 and the present day) On 12/10/15 20:01, Ron Baione wrote: > Nigel, The question was postualted, I answered it. Everytime the > question is repostulated, I will reanswer it. > > We can all see what the strategy is, re-ask the same question until > those who aren't "corporate enough" are shouted down. Declare the > results of consensus that were never asked for. Delay tactics and > consensus pushing are amateur hour, not going to work on me. > > Ron > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From: * Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; > *To: * Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com>; <el@lisse.NA>; > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; > *Cc: * <directors@omadhina.net>; > *Subject: * Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand? > *Sent: * Mon, Oct 12, 2015 6:55:01 PM > > Ron > > This is a Workstream 2 issue. > > Please give it a rest. > > On 12/10/15 19:47, Ron Baione wrote: > > "E. What would the community take as evidence in the short term that > > the Board is acting in good faith? I'm concerned by what appears to be > > Board bashing on the list, wherein many things that any of us say or do > > are interpreted negatively and perhaps conspiratorially. I realize that > > the great majority of people involved int he CCSG process do not have > > such attitudes, but predictably it only takes a very few individuals to > > sour and confuse a discussion and lessen its utility." > > > > In my opinion, an agreement to the development of an external > > whistleblower process to protect the post-tranaition process from bad > > actor government and corporate agents' influence. No reason to waste > > time on anything before knowing the post-transition process won't be a > > facade of multistakeholder democracy. The moment the public finds out > > from "wikileaks" etc, that nefarious activity occurred the internet will > > become a 100% circus show, and that means conhressional hearings. > > > > Ron > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From: * Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA <javascript:return>>; > > *To: * <nigel@channelisles.net <javascript:return>>; > > <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:return>>; > > *Cc: * <directors@omadhina.net <javascript:return>>; > > *Subject: * Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Where do we stand? > > *Sent: * Mon, Oct 12, 2015 12:28:48 PM > > > > Nigel, > > > > I don't see it like this. > > > > At the moment they want us to blink first. > > > > And if we do not, they either are going to pass forward unmodified > > (with whatever comments they like, of course), or, overturn > > themselves by resolution (which I would see as the nuclear option at > > the moment). > > > > greetings, el > > > > On 2015-10-12 14:09, Nigel Roberts wrote: > > [...] > > > But it's all academic, since no matter what the consensus outcome, the > > > Board reserves the right to reject it anyway. > > [...] > > > > -- > > Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) > > el@lisse.NA <javascript:return> <javascript:return> / * > | Telephone: +264 81 > > 124 6733 (cell) > > PO Box 8421 \ / > > Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <javascript:return> > <javascript:return> > > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > |