ICANN/DNSO
DNSO Mailling lists archives

[ga-abuse]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

[ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair

  • To: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
  • Subject: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair
  • From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
  • Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 02:05:38 -0700
  • CC: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>, dnso abuse <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
  • Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
  • References: <025901c10d6e$212c4e80$b33efea9@hamza> <3B520225.E064358B@hermesnetwork.com> <034101c10d79$ebb20180$b33efea9@hamza> <3B5245DF.9D6F9CAA@hermesnetwork.com> <033601c10d9c$0b370920$b33efea9@hamza>
  • Sender: owner-ga-abuse@dnso.org

Patrick and all assembly members,

  I take offense to this obviously disingenuous attempt at and apology
to Sotiris.  I hope Sotiris recognizes it for what it is as well.  But he
may no as I believe he is a very magnanimous fellow.

  As such, you have now twice in one day insulted the GA members
with you insinuations.  Therefore I am complaining about your behavior.

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 21:39:43 -0400, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
> Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion -- Call on the Chair
>
> > Patrick, I take issue with being called pretty much a liar for no good
> > reason at all.  I am not equivocating on this "motion", I am trying to
> > get a better understanding of its circumstances, scope, and intent.  If
> > it is also against the rules to ask questions, then what exactly *is*
> > allowed by the "rules"?
>
> Dear Sotiris
>
> On reflection I may have been more brusque than I meant.  If so I apologise.
> It certainly was not my intention to ascribe any motivation (such as lying)
> to your comments.
>
> Should any such inference be made, I withdraw it unreservedly.
>
> In fact, I have always respected your good will and, as you made clear
> in an earlier email, your intention was, as you say, to probe the underlying
> implications.  I respect that and responded amending the wording a little.
>
> My comments were merely meant to say that too much examination of the
> *next step* prevents us from taking the *first step*.  The motion is really
> quite simple.  It is to prevent continuing disruption of substantive debate
> with arguments about procedural issues.  I'd value your support.
>
> The fact is that the General Assembly is totally incapable of getting any
> work done or even any motion passed.
>
> I think that is shameful.
>
> There really is significant support for the motion.  Should you agree, I am
> sure that Danny would assist by recognising the desirability of separating
> substantive and procedural issues.
>
> Otherwise the GA debate will be entirely stifled by continuing diversions.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>