[ga] Scandal, Discussion and Argument

[Matthew Pemble <matthew@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Folks,

Please consider this a general reply to the various messages ...

I think, perhaps, Hugh meant 'prudish' rather than 'prurient' in his
warning.  Personally, I have no problem with discussing 'sex', per se - in
fact, the whole ICM Registry / xxx tld issue and any potential court action
would be an entirely valid one for this list (my 2p - I am appalled by the
naivety of those on one side of the arguments that think that it will
encourage sex on the internet or make it easier to find - remember "The
Internet is for Porn" - and the same for those on the other who think that
all of that icky stuff will magically disappear from other tlds or ccs.)
But, to the very limited extent that any person's private life is the
business of anybody other than those directly involved, I don't believe it
is the business of a public list.  If we want the GA to have any chance of
being taken seriously, we need to demonstrate that we are capable of
behaving like serious professionals.

Having said that, there is a distinct cultural divide between the USA and
ROW (I have limited experience of non-military Canadians, they might also
bat prudish) regarding relationships at work, having seen it cause issues
working in a large multinational with significant US subsidiaries.  Unlike
the US, where it is seen as anathema in many organisations, most
jurisdictions don't allow attempts to interfere with people's relationships
but many will allow you to move people to different roles if there is a
serious conflict of interest. It is professional to recuse yourself from
positions of judgement but then many people aren't professional. Anecdata: I
met my wife when she worked for my father, a long time ago now, and we are
now co-directors.

If there is an allegation of serious misconduct or 'heinous acts' then,
provided that it is directly related to the business of the list then I have
little problem with it being aired - my issues with the whole Joe / John /
Thomas 'debate' were around the pointlessness of it all and the lack of any
evidence.  As Hugh said, repetition of mere allegation does nothing to prove
(or disprove) your case.

George's recent highlighting of inconsistency, error and probable negligence
in UDRP judgements - as well as the embedded bias towards the complainant -
shows that this list can be of significant value.  (I would note the
interesting split judgement in the AdventureRV 1st point - the 2 US
panellists ruled one way on common law, the English one another - there are
significant variations in what is generally assumed to be a consistent
base.)

If we do have sock-puppets on here, as opposed to trolls (and the fact I
think that some of Jeff's postings are trollish - and many just wrong in his
understanding of how US law applies to the rest of the world - doesn't mean
I doubt his personal existence), then we may need to control them.  The only
accusation of such, I believe, is Joe claiming that John and Thomas are the
same person.  However, given the lack of influence and general lack utility
we are demonstrating, that is largely irrelevant at the moment.

I'm happy to discuss this further off-list but I feel that I am beginning to
contribute to the noise rather than the signal ...

Matthew



-- 
Matthew Pemble
Technical Director, Idrach Ltd

Mobile: +44 (0) 7595 652175
Office: + 44 (0) 1324 820690