Re: [ga] GA list and the GNSO council

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Debbie and all,

  Well we will have to agree to disagree here.  Giving a long
winded politically/correct oriented answer to a simple
request is hiding something, which is VERY unprofessional IMHO.
As I was taught in law school, brevity, brevity, always brevity!

  Of course marketing, sales, policy wonks, and other assorted
political gad fly folks, are prone to these types of answers.
When I even begin to hear them from any of my companies
providers, I routinely through them out of my office, call security
and have them escorted off the premises post haste, and call their
boss and tell him/her bluntly "never send that person to any of
our facilities ever again."

  And when I request something from either of my daughters,
they both know, and have been taught in private school already,
to give a simple yes or no, and if no and a explanation is in
order or they feel strongly it is necessary, they are to give
as brief an explanation as possible which is direct and simple.
I believe at Oxford this same principal is also taught in
Interpersonal Communication.

Debbie Garside wrote:

> Hi Jeff
>
> I have to agree with Chuck on this, I think Avril's mail was perfectly clear
> and polite in saying that the GNSO Council list is for members, liaisons and
> staff only. To write "NO" as Joe suggested (consider yourself told off Joe -
> shame on you as List Monitor) would be quite unprofessional IMHO.  I would
> not start a response in that way and do not expect others to display what I
> would call such unprofessional behaviour - it ain't cricket m'dear!
>
> I also think that if this group wishes to be taken seriously they/we should
> accept such explanations gracefully.  Do you really think the GNSO Council
> could wade through the volumes of mail posted to it if it was open house!
>
> I also think that Danny is right in his (subsequent) response.  There needs
> to be a mechanism for "real/important" information to be conveyed to the
> GNSO Council.  However, as Avril also stated, that unofficial) mechanism is
> somewhat in place, it's just that the message is invariably lost in the
> noise*; a number of members of the Council, ICANN Board and ICANN Staff
> monitor this list.  The way it should work, IMHO, is if the Chair perceives
> consensus from the members of this forum on an issue of import he can inform
> the members of the Council/Board/Staff.
>
> Whilst on this subject, members of this list should go through the Chair -
> that is what they are for.   It is quite unnecessary to copy the board/staff
> into various mails and it just waters down any issues of importance the
> Chair may raise on this groups behalf.
>
> If you/we could just clean up our act, devise the rules and regulations for
> contribution to this list (and stick to them) we might find we MAY be taken
> seriously and have significant input as an expert body.  I keep saying this
> and you are not listening.  If I cannot keep up with the volume of emails I
> don't see how any other professional can.
>
> I call upon the Chair and the List Monitor to bring this forum to order.
> (Please :-))  Let us try to find order within chaos and a way around this
> hermeneutic circle.
>
> Best
>
> Debbie
> *Shannon and Weaver as applied to human communication
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
> > Sent: 10 July 2007 06:17
> > To: ga
> > Subject: Re: [ga] GA list and the GNSO council
> >
> > Dr. Baptista and all,
> >
> >   Here here!  Given the length and/or dissertation form of
> > her answer, it read more like and excuse rather than an explanation.
> > I am glad you, Dr. Joe, recognized that in your remarks below.
> > Seems Chuck and Dr. Dierker didn't recognize same, or wished
> > to be tricky in not directly reveling that they had.  >;)
> >
> >   Ahhh, isn't nuance a wonderful thing!  >;)  I often equate
> > nuance with CYA and/or an over indulgence in political
> > correctness when a answer to a request is made, and good
> > direct answer is not *reasonably* available.
> >
> > Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> > >
> > > >Jeff,
> > > >
> > > >I am not sure why you concluded that Avri did not answer
> > your request:
> > > >She said, and I repeat, "I also believe that if the
> > council is (to)
> > > >get work done, it is critical that the council list remain
> > a council
> > > >member's list with posting only by council, liaisons and relevant
> > > >staff."  I certainly do not mean to be flip, but I
> > understand that to
> > > >be a 'no' with regard to your request.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > People should say what they mean and mean what they say.
> > > Unfortunately this is email and the same rules don't necessarily
> > > apply.  I usually find it is better to simply repond in one word
> > > answers and then launch into an explaination which means
> > (or equals)
> > > no.  So I would word this as follows,
> > >
> > > Avri should of said "NO, I believe that if the council is (to) get
> > > work done, it is critical that the council list remain a council
> > > member's list with posting only by council, liaisons and
> > relevant staff."
> > >
> > > Thats a much better statement which conveys a consise
> > ANSWER, followed
> > > by a detailed excuse or explaination.
> > >
> > > Anyway Chuck hope all is well.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> > >
> > > --
> > > Joe Baptista                                www.publicroot.org
> > > PublicRoot Consortium
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive,
> > > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > >   Office: +1 (202) 517-1593
> > >      Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084
> > >
> > >
>
>

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827