[NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2

Fri Apr 25 14:16:58 EDT 2008

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 at yahoo.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 3:45 AM
To: cheryl at 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 at 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 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
> 
> 
> 

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