PATRICK AT ICANN - PAY ATTENTION Re: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's Patrick at ICANN.  Thats what makes this all so fishy.  It's like
Debbie ignores the John Palmer complaint but just ballistic on the ICANN
complaint.  I think someones nose is a little brown here.

Patrick - I want you to provide me A.S.A.P. with a copy of you email
complaint to myself, hugh, and the secretariat.  Thanks in advance.

cheers
joe baptista
ga list monitor at large

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Theresa
<theresa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>    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 <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> *Date:* 4/16/2009 1:04:52 PM
> *To:* 'GA' <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
>
>
>     [image: FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click 
> Here!]<http://www.incredimail.com/index.asp?id=109094&rui=108984509>
>



-- 
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