RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My responses are in line.



We wait for the following from Ms. Garside:
 
What rule(s) specifically were violated. 
 
 Rule 3. 3. The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:

- not indulging in what may be perceived as personal attacks or insults 

- not using what may be perceived as or is clearly intended to be offensive
and/or disruptive language

- not indulging in threats of legal action of any kind on list; off list
threats may also be forwarded to the Chairman or List Monitor who may decide
to take action against the perpetrator of such threats 

- not exceeding any limitations on the number of posts allowed within a
given time period that may be imposed by the GA Chair at the request of
members

- not exceeding a message size of more than 30KB without exceptional reason

 
 
Exactly what language was considered a violation. 
 
As List Monitor, I consider the entire post a violation of the rules.  It
was a personal attack, it did not observe a minimum of decorum, I considered
it downright offensive and so did the complainant.
 
 
 
What authority is there for a single moderator to suspend a member of the
list? 
 
Final sentence in 3.3 of our rules which states: "The List Monitor or the
Chair may impose sanctions for persistent offenses." 
 
Who was the secret complainant? And specifically what was their complaint? 
 
I am not prepared to divulge the name of the complainant.  It is enough that
I have received a complaint and, as List Monitor, I have upheld the
complaint. 
 
It would be good if I had the support of the Chair.
 
Debbie
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Was the complainant a list member? 
 
NR
 
 
Should she recuse herself from the matter due to outstanding issues with JW?
 
Let us do this all public like, so we can all get a clue.
 
Certainly pending the information above no action should be taken regarding
JWs posting priviledges.
 
I just hope the complainant is not a non list executive or staffer with
ICANN. That would be really bad.