RE: [ga] FYI:Google's chief legal officer slapped with SEC fines

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A possible rewording of the paragraph in question:
 
----  

3. The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:

- not indulging in what may be perceived as personal attacks or insults or
any other behaviour considered inflammatory

----

We could, perhaps, add a further sanction, at the discretion of the Chair or
List Monitor to suspend first offenders for 48 hours for persistent
OT/inflammatory postings.

I also feel that we should tighten up on the sanctions to be imposed - with
actual time scales designated for suspension etc.

 In the light of comments on and off list, I am thinking that there should
be a rule introduced for persistent offenders that would permanently exclude
them from the forum - for example, 4 sanctions imposed within a given time
period, say 6 months, would mean the offender is excluded for 6 months, with
return to the forum allowed only under certain conditions - e.g. 2 sanctions
for a repeat offender would mean 1 year exclusion with return allowed under
"probation". 

Debbie

(who is not altogether innocent herself - but is prepared to suffer the
consequences in the future - at the Chairs/List Monitors discretion)

 


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Debbie Garside
Sent: 23 July 2007 15:24
To: hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx; 'Jeff Williams'
Cc: 'General Assembly of the DNSO'
Subject: RE: [ga] FYI:Google's chief legal officer slapped with SEC fines


+1
 
I think we have already covered this within the draft Rules:
 
----
 
3. The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:

- not indulging in what may be perceived as personal attacks, insults or
slander

 

----

Perhaps we could tighten up on this wording

Best

Debbie


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Hugh Dierker
Sent: 23 July 2007 15:06
To: Jeff Williams
Cc: General Assembly of the DNSO
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI:Google's chief legal officer slapped with SEC fines


This is an example of way off topic. This thread should stop here. Clever
tie ins' attacking the charactar of BoD members does not create relevance.
 
However this may become relevant to discuss what should or should not be
allowed in context.
 
Eric
 
This is worse than over posting.

Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Lauren,

Read/sounds like World/com/con all over again. I wonder if this
idiot was on the legal council of Worldcom when it did the same
thing?

Seems Vint has some serious "Evangelizing" to do. And this brings
me back to ICANN again, as Vint sits on ICANN's Bod as chairman,
seems to me there is some consideration regarding conflict of Interest
here...

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2007/072007-googles-chief-legal-officer-sla
pped.html?netht=072007dailynews1&

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827







  _____  

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=47093/*http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/222> with
an Edge to see what's on, when.