Cheryl, Glad that I could be of help... but I certainly hope that voting on Statements after they have already been issued will not become the way that ALAC handles matters going forward. In my part of the world organizations vote on Statements prior to their release :) Have a nice weekend, Danny --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Ahhh Danny, thanks for this reply... it gives me an easy 'reply to' method of addressing an oversight I'd just realized... Sorry it is 0415 here and I have also been on other ALAC related chats and communications channels on a number of issues... ( we have a lot of SC and WG activities coming together at the moment) while I've been working on replies and interjections for this Joint Statement and the NARALO topic...
I'd just come back to the lappy as I'd realized I'd neglected to state in my earlier reply that with regards to a 'Vote by the ALAC' on the matter of the Joint Statement... I had put that request in as a matter of normal course for Staff to organize earlier today so that is being addressed -> as it should be, but as yet I do not know when the call to vote will go out...
CLO -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:45 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Cc: 'Nick Ashton-Hart' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Cheryl,
I would be happy to address my remarks to the team members that agreed to the language in the Joint Statement. Unfortunately, I don't know which individuals actually participated or which folk contributed what remarks to the discussions.
No attempt was made to work transparently, no written records are available to review, and the team defaulted in its obligation to publish the document for community review by 15 April as personally promised by the ALAC Chair at the monthly ALAC teleconference.
Finally, some some reason the "team" had a comfort level with promulgating a Statement on behalf of the ALAC that hadn't been voted upon by the ALAC itself.
I find this to be a troubling development not in keeping with norms that I associate with Civil Society behavior. Yes, I consider it to be an abuse.
regards, Danny
--- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
Danny, we seem to have got personal for some reason... but I will reply by stating that...
I note and personally regret your extreme disappointment and frustrations with the outcome of, and included language in, the *Joint* Statement...
But like anyone who puts themselves up for any publically scrutinized Leadership Position I know all too well that everything I do and say is up for review and comment 'so be it'... Further in my quite extensive experience in leadership positions, I also know that you rarely make everyone happy at any one time...
SO... I will also publically note (but not react directly to) your criticism and dissatisfaction with my various personal and professional qualities including (but I assume not limited to) those specifically relating to:- negotiation skills, change management capabilities, language ineptitude, an inability to make my case / beliefs understood or agreed to, and the general performance of my duties as Chair of ALAC including in your view an unacceptable abuse of power... Have I missed any?
Kindest regards,
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:56 AM To: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; 'Alan Greenberg'; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain?
There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever.
If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large.
Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives.
--- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO.
Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ