RE: Re: [ga] Monthly Reports

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My biggest mistake was in notifying the list that I had received a private
complaint; I could and should have acted alone - my apologies to Patrick.  I
stand by my decision to not name the complainant and hope that you can all
now see that  I was justified in trying to protect him from just this sort
of circus style behaviour from the resident trolls and sock puppets.  It
truly is time to close this list. 
 
Question: are Hugh/Joe/Jeff all one person?  They seem to be.


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Hugh Dierker
Sent: 18 April 2009 03:39
To: ga
Subject: Fw: Re: [ga] Monthly Reports


My apologies. I did not realize Mr. Jones could post directly through the
list. I assumed wrongfully his post was direct and private. Clearly it would
be wrong for me to keep my response private.

--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ga] Monthly Reports
To: "Patrick Jones" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 11:31 PM



Thank you Mr. Jones.
 
I am quite intrigued that you handled this manner in a less than open and
transparent manner.  Behind the scenes manipulation of our process has long
been more of a reason for problems here than open and honest debates
regarding the issues.
An ICANN staffer that holds the GA in such disdain, usurping all proper
channels of open communication is quite concerning. The clear hatred you
have for JW was just too reflective in Ms. Garsides adamant behavior.
 
I apologize that our discourse here is not up to your professional
standards. I must take some exception to your condescending tone and manner.
Clearly our standards are far more morally acceptable than yours.
 
Your politics and interference here are quite unwelcome. As of a few hours
ago you were not even a member. Ms. Garsides' lack of candor about being
coerced by an ICANN staffer is equally appalling and disappointing. 
 
I am sure in your position you could do good work toward getting us polling
and voting booths to allow us to more properly self govern. Instead you
violate your mandate as an ICANN employee and surreptitiously use your
position to silence public opinion and then shape it to your ends.
 
The Audits that George criticized will have to be scrutinized to the highest
levels. It certainly appears that you have been trying to inappropriately
squash any public inquiry into the same. Your relationship with dotCAT is
now horribly suspect. Your quickly produced quick fix without explanation
fits right in with this whole sordid mess.
 
Being called names by you begins to take on a mantle of respect. If you have
such a hard time with our free speech and openness and candor, it says a
great deal about you.
 
Hopefully those who recently complained we spent too much effort on this
will not be so quick to rush to judgment, in the future. How many others
working toward a better GA have been co-opted by a renegade employee of
ICANN.
 
I will review my obligations regarding reporting this matter further.
 
I am greatly saddened to see first hand what so many claimed for so many
years was happening to create a false reflection of public input into the
ICANN process. Now all the public input that ICANN related to the US gov as
being representative of that public is suspect.
--- On Thu, 4/16/09, Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [ga] Monthly Reports
To: "ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thursday, April 16, 2009, 10:18 PM


On 14 April George Kirikos noted a problem with the .CAT monthly report. I
saw the message and wrote to George directly, informing him that the error
would be corrected (which it was yesterday), and that he could pass along my
response to the list.

What followed from that email has confirmed to me that the GA list - which
is a legacy of something that ceased to exist a long time ago - has passed
the point of a viable cross-constituency discussion list.

Jeff's email was a personal attack, but I suppose that is nothing new
because he's been doing it for years, nothing ever gets done about it, and
he's usually ignored as I should have done. I thought this list had
self-moderated and that Debbie was the proper person to address the issue. I
thank Debbie for trying. I've been in this community a long time, and should
know better than to even bother with this. But it did bother me, because I,
and other staff, do try to be responsive to community concerns, even when
they come from call corners of the community.

This will be the last time I engage this list. There are many great ways to
communicate and participate in public discussion, on issues of importance
relating to the Internet and its unique identifiers. This is not one of
them.

Patrick