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

[Joe Baptista <baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>
> The only thing worse than Jeff's silly games with the mailing list is three
> days of debate about what should be done about it.


Complaint to debbie.  She broke ranks.


>
>
> At least Jeff can be dev/null'ed, but its clear that the only real real
> reprieve comes with an unsubscribe.


But your not going to unsubscribe are you.  You'll be here tomorrow.

cheers
joe baptista


>
>
> On Apr 16, 2009, at 8:47 PM, Joe Baptista wrote:
>
>  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
>>
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
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