RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Eric and Debbie,

 

I would personally invest more time into something with the merits
rather than perpetually feel like being offended by words. The wording
in the rules such as "what may be felt or perceived" as personal attacks
are inherently vague and along with the "secret complainant" it already
resembles the speech of Orwell's Big Brother or my dear comrades during
old-gold communism, which as it seems is still a potentially viable
idea.

 

I think every normal person should be resistant enough to harsher
speech. I, personally, was being much harsher when expressing and
addressing my opinions to the staff or even to the board members simply
because I could not stand their reluctance, incompetence or
money-addiction any longer. I also do not agree with any sort of secret
complainants with no even trivial courage to publicly express his or her
opinion and stand for it. Messages form such persons should be
immediately rejected as inappropriate. I thing we all are familiar
enough with the "behind closed doors" communication and I wouldn't like
to get involved in it here where free and viable discussion is expected.
We needn't share JW's opinions, we can skip them or filter them out but
I find it a bit paranoiac to demonize his posts by persistent
elaborating on 48 hrs, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, etc. I simply cannot understand
this.

 

A view from above and more tolerance would be suitable...

 

Dominik

 

  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Hugh Dierker
Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2009 6:01 PM
To: 'GA'; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

 


Well your reasoning and review of our rules is persuasive.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.)

--- 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

 

 

__________ Informacia od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verzia databazy 4014
(20090416) __________

 

Tuto spravu preveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

 

http://www.eset.sk