Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: Direct vs. Indirect elections

[Jeff Williams]

Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Dear Esteemed Mr. Williams,
>
> Again I find reason to agree with all your comments even though the advocate in me would
> like to argue some minimal points.
>
> Yes you are right it is uncompensated and un authorized at this point.  Just as the
> continuation of the WG-Review is and was.  Just as Joop and Sotiris and most of Danny's
> work is.  Just as the Best Practices and Outreach is.  Just as Elisabeth's work was in
> large portion.  What authorization is required to do good works and help your fellow
> sister?

  The answer lies in what the situation is.  As I understand it, the situation
to which you are suggesting that I take over the funding of (Whatever?),
is where the problem actually lies in part.  But only in part.  Even if I knew
what is is that I am supposed to be funding, which presently I do not,
than it would also depend of if I would have a conflict of interest,
and at a minimum a vote of confidence from the body or enterprise
in which these funds are to be used for.  Presently I believe that
the funds you are requesting of for the DNSO GA as general
funds.  I would need the authorization for the ICANN CEO
and the support by vote of the ICANN BoD to legally conduct
such a funding effort.  None of these to I have any knowledge
that I or anyone else has in this specific respect.  However I do
believe that the DNSO GA can in and of itself create it's
own funding, and should do so.

> You of all people have demanded and lived by what you consider the
> authorization of doing what is right and for that we are all authorized. Shoot I do not
> think ICANNWATCH and ICANNBLOG are authorized.  Certainly I have no authorization to
> conduct outreach and consensus building.

  You do have authorization to do outreach and consensus building from the
WG-Review.  In addition all of us should be working on doing outreach.

>  My company and it's great leaders (not me)
> certainly did not have authorization to expend time and money to help the cause.

  What cause?  What money?  Where's the money for what cause?

>
> Roeland and David have received no compensation except knowledge of doing right.

  I believe this is correct.  But until or unless that Motion put forward in the
GA is voted upon we really do not know if it is right.  However I believe
that is is right.  I will be voting for it when a ballot is provided on the GA.

>
> Technically they are not authorized to participate in the GA, as spokesman for the
> INEGroup which is not a member of any constituency you are not authorized to be there.
> But God help us without you!

  The MoU authorizes me and anyone to participate.  Ergo, I am failing to
get your point here realistically.  A constituency, regardless of whether or
not is is an ICANN "Authorized" Constituency is a constituency none the less...

>
>
> It is like Sierra Madre'  "Badges what badges? we don't need no stinkin badges".  It is
> like the King of the Jews let his crown be of thorns.  Franklin, Jefferson, Washington
> and Hamilton were not authorized.

  Yes Eric they were indeed authorized in the sense that they were amongst
a large group of individuals that formed the Continental Congress..

>  Certainly neither Ghandi nor Ho Chi Minh were
> authorized or compensated.

  Of course they were.  The were elected by their constituents.

>  I do not believe we consider Davie Crockett or Mother
> Theresa as compensated or authorized.

  Davie Crockett was a paid congressman.  Mother Theresa got her
compensation from the Catholic church and in other ways.

>
>
> Now you can pick each portion of this apart or you can go with the gist.  As us boys
> say, fish or cut bait.

  I do both at the same time most often!  >;)  I have INEGroup responsibilities
as well as a number of others.

>  But know this; if you start cutting up this post with precision
> you will be cutting bait while the rest of us are fishing.

  Well I hope you catch a big one!  >;)  BTW, skin them yourself please.

>
>
> Sincerely,
> Eric
>
> Jeff Williams wrote:
>
> > Eric and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > Jeff,
> > >
> > > I need some help here.  As you know I have been given a ball to run with,
> > > Outreach/Consensus building.
> >
> >   Yes on the GA you are.  Keep plugging!  >;)
> >
> > >
> > > I do not and cannot also carry the finance ball.  Please run with it. As I was
> > > told, "we don't need your suggestions at this time we need your actions".
> >
> >   I would love to do so.  I would of course need in the current ICANN
> > structure the authority to do so however.  Presently I don't have
> > that authority either from the ICANN BoD or the DNSO GA.
> > When and if I have that, I would be happy to do so if there is
> > proper compensation by which I have a good opportunity to
> > make it happen.  I await that call and opportunity. So, it is
> > unfortunate and with some dismay that I must consider
> > this request one that has no authority nor provides even
> > the minimum of compensation to achieve any reasonable
> > goals.  Therefore there is no means by which I can
> > except this request with all due respect.  I DO appreciate
> > the thought however. >:)
> >
> > >  This
> > > may seem like a strictly GA matter but it is not.
> >
> >   Very true.
> >
> > > As this forum will presumably
> > > be shut down at the time of MDR we need to keep the bottoms up method working and
> > > there is just one need financially.  Please give it some thought then take action
> > > and get it done.
> >
> >   Again no authority or means, I cannot and do not except at this time.
> >
> > >

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208