RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Theresa
 
Thank you for engaging on this subject.  You are most welcome.
 
If I may just take the liberty of clarifying my position.  Whilst sixteen weeks 
may seem on the face of it rather excessive, I would ask GA List members to 
bear in mind that this is not the first time we have had to suspend Mr 
Williams; it is in fact the fourth.  As List Monitor I do not need to have 
someone complain in order to act so the fact that the complainant is not happy 
to be identified is quite irrelevant.  In fact, last week Mr Williams broke the 
list rules on a minimum of 4 occasions; inflammatory posting, excessive 
postings and cross-posting. 
 
However, I am quite happy to go with a consensus on this and if during the 
course of this 2 day appeal the general consensus is that 16 weeks is too long, 
I will listen to the wishes of the membership and reduce the suspension 
accordingly.
 
Many thanks, once again, for your input.
 
Best regards
 
Debbie Garside
List Monitor
 
 


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Theresa
Sent: 16 April 2009 18:13
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension



I think 16 weeks would be excessive, especially since the complaints name was 
kept not only confidential but confidential to one person alone.  I, think 8 
weeks might be more appropriate....and a meeting in the middle so to speak.  
Yes he was out of line but unless the complaint wants to step forward and make 
the complaint public you have only the monitors word that there was even a 
complaint. 
 
 
Theresa
-------Original Message-------
 
From: Debbie Garside <mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Date: 4/16/2009 1:04:52 PM
To: 'GA' <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
Subject: RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension
 
Responses inline:

 

Well your reasoning and review of our rules is persuasive. 
 
Thank you. 
 
Would it seem appropriate for me to give this .... say 48 hrs for comment and 
JW to respond?
That was my first thought. This is my final thought. 
 
That is quite appropriate... but I would request that the Secretariat monitor 
the posts from Mr Williams.  Said monitoring is to make sure that during this 
period Mr Williams post only on the topic of any appeal. 
 
In 48 hrs JW will be suspended for 6 wks. This was a determination from a list 
monitor that must be respected as; it is within the framework of our rules and 
not arbitrary or capricious. 
The 48 hrs is a time in which anyone can come forth with compelling reason to 
overturn Ms. Garsides' decision. The modification to 6 wks, is temperance on 
the part of the Chair. 
 
Thank you for your support.  But I requested no temperance from the Chair in 
this case.  I would point you to the List Rules especially the last sentence:
 
Section 4 states:
Repeat offenders may get correspondingly larger sanctions (for instance 4 weeks 
for a second offence, 8 weeks for a third). The period is decided by the List 
Monitor. 
 
As List Monitor I designate that the suspension, if upheld, shall be for 16 
weeks.  Mr Williams will be welcome to post on and after the 5th of August 2009 
as stated yesterday; the two day period where he may post in line only with the 
appeal is also classed as monitored/suspended posting rights therefore this 
date is correct.
 
I remind all of the LIncoln quote in every one of JWs posts. (interesting that 
I brought that quote to his attention and that it is written on the entrance to 
the Springfield courthouse.) 
 
Then let us be seen to uphold and adhere to the List Rules as written.
 
Regards
 
Debbie Garside
List Monitor 
 
 
 
 
 
 


--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension
To: "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 7:59 AM



According to the List Rules: 

 

Section 4 (in part) 


In the event that sanctions imposed by the List Monitor are challenged the GA 
Chair will act as Arbitrator. The GA Chairs decision is final. 



Further: 



Section 8 Election and Function of the Chair states: 


The Chair shall post in one of two capacities. 


The first and foremost, by obligations agreed to and undertaken, is, as Chair. 
Administrative matters shall be thus posted: 


Centering arguments within threads. 
Steering a posting individual if there is ambiguity or obvious matter left out 
in the post. 
Routinely setting forth areas of concern and formulating and implementing 
phraseology to assist in the GA objectives. Interacting assertively with other 
bodies within ICANN.

Secondly, as an individual. It shall be assumed the Chair is posting as an 
individual. So the Chair will have to make open and clear designations to any 
posts made as Chair. 


I believe that first and foremost you are the Chair Eric and therefore 
personalities should be set aside. 



I would request that the Chair rule on this immediately so that order between 
the Administrators of this Forum may be restored as soon as possible. 



Regards 



Debbie Garside 


List Monitor 



  _____  

From: Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: 16 April 2009 15:50
To: 'GA'; 'Secretariat'; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension 




Thank you Debbie. 

 

I took the time to review issues regarding this poster JW. I believe the 
history between us goes back to 12/99. When this list was denuded under a 
restructuring JW and I determined to keep it going when it lost 99% of all 
activity. As is obvious it has rebounded somewhat.

Our history creates a situation where it is innappropriate for me to take an 
active role in matters regarding his discipline.

 

We need to appoint another monitor in addition to Joe and Debbie. The chair 
needs to in general not take an active role in monitoring except to monitor the 
monitors and be the final arbiter and liason to the Secretariat.

 

This does not solve the current problem as we are short a 3rd monitor. This 
matter should be continued without prejudice until we fix this glitch.

 

Volunteers for monitor should respond and so indicate publicly on the list.

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension
To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx, "'GA'" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Secretariat'" 
<GNSO.SECRETARIAT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 12:12 AM 




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.



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.58/2061 - Release Date: 15/04/2009 
19:52

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.11.58/2061 - Release Date: 15/04/2009 
19:52


 

                        
 <http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109094&rui=108984509> FREE Animations 
for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!