Re: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> 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.
>

Yes you can.  Thats your job.

In point of fact most of Jeff Williams behavior can be corrected using an
automation process.  If he goes over the stated limited - he gets baned.  If
there are any programmers out there willing to contribute to writing the
code - let me know.


> 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.
>

The chair is showing bad judgment.  We don't need another clown - you me and
debbie is more then enough clowns.  The problem is debbie.  She's in my not
so humble opinion a bit nutty.

Our policy is to first discuss issues amongst ourselves and if the monitor
disagreed then you had your say.  And you had your say.  You had your say.
You agreed with me in private discussion that there was no libel, slander,
or defamation in the email from Jeff concerning Patrick at ICANN.  An email
complaint incidentally that debbie has yet been unable and unwilling to
produce.  Maybe if patrick is hanging out here he might want to send me a
copy of his complaint.  Debbie the resident star chamber monitor refuses to
produce it.

Do you understand where I'm coming from here Hugh.  One of the clowns is not
playing ball.  She broke our mutual agreement to not act independently and
now debbie looks a bit like a fool.  As do I and you.

Mr. Chair when an employee breaks the rules the solution is not to appoint
another employee.  The solution lies in replacing the faulty unit with
someone else.  It's time to retire debbie.



>
> 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.
>

No - were monitor happy.  Again we don't need a third.  We need to replace
the renegade monitor.

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

oye - here comes madness.

cheers
joe baptista


>
>
> --- 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.
>
>
>
>


-- 
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 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052)
    Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084