Re: [ga] Pending motion of suspension

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The complaint is from patrick at icann.  i think this is the guy.

http://www.icann.org/en/biog/jones.htm

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  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.
>
It was intended to be that way.  The rules were originally designed years
ago to manage my behavior on these lists.  Now i am list monitor.  Life is
comedy is it not.

But your right - in light of the fact that the complaint is from icann - and
debbie has refused to even provide her fellow monitor with the complaint or
the chair - leaves one wondering what moon debbie is revolving around these
days.  She seems to have a lot in common with Karl Peters.


>
>
> I think every normal person should be resistant enough to harsher speech.
>
I agree.  Insult me - i'll prove it.


> 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.
>
agreed.  lets get rid of them.


> 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.
>
Don't worry - as long as i am list monitor this is not going to be swept
under the rug.  This is to date the most offensive action.


> 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.
>
the rules are punitive in nature.


>
>
> A view from above and more tolerance would be suitable…
>
debbie is not very tolerant.

cheers
joe baptista



>
>
> 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
>
>
> __________ Informacia od ESET NOD32 Antivirus, verzia databazy 4014
> (20090416) __________
>
> Tuto spravu preveril ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.sk
>



-- 
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