[NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

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 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:56 AM
To: cheryl at 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 at 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 at yahoo.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM
> To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss
> Cc: cheryl at 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
> 
> 
> 



 
____________________________________________________________________________
________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ