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>