[ga-abuse] Respect to the Participants is Mandatory

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

List Moderator

The Rules of Order for the Mailing Lists of the GA state:

Two main principles since the origin of this server in June 1999, explicited in
the welcome message sent by majordomo to every new subscriber:

(1)    the non cross-posting rule is reinforced
(2)    the respect to the participants is mandatory

More explicit rules of order are defined in
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
* Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander

I hereby complain that the following seven posts, made publicly and privately,
do not exhibit the mandatory respect due to the participants.  Furthermore, they
also do not observe the minimum of decorum which requires messages not to
indulge in personal attacks, insults or slander.

In particular I find that my moderate, private letter to William X. Walsh was
reposted to the list (in itself not showing respect to participants) and
mischaracterised as:

(a)    exceeding my authority
(b)   demanding and unreasonable
(c)    inappropriate and improper
(d)    outside the scope of the rules
(e)    an expansion of my role

As well, having identified a lack of "respect to the participants" my attempt to
moderate the onlist behaviour was subsequently undermined as I predicted.
Bringing the Co-Chair into disrepute allowed other participants to engage in the
same bahaviour.

I cite 19 examples which I comsider breach these rules as follows:

Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
From: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001 21:20:24 -0700
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00914.html
All this would perhaps not matter if Froomkin were an objective
observer, but he is not.

To: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
Subject: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 00:58:47 -0700
Complaint:  Posting of Private Correspondence Onlist
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00925.html
First of all do not tell me that I am undermining the integrity of the list by
telling you when you are crossing the line with overapplying
the rules.

Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols
To: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:22:47 -0700
CC: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>, "[GA]" <ga@dnso.org>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00932.html
And that is the proper way to address a perceived need to change the rules, not
for an alternate chair to take it upon himself to expand
them into what he sees as proper behavior.

Re[2]: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
To: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 01:41:42 -0700
CC: "[ga-abuse]" <ga-abuse@dnso.org>, "Harald Tveit Alvestrand"
<Harald@Alvestrand.no>, "[GA]" <ga@dnso.org>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00934.html

(1)     Do you understand the distinction?

(2)    The reason you may be unable to perform your role is because I believe
you do not understand completely what that role is, and think it is more than
what it is.

ga] Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
To: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Subject: [ga] Fw: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols
From: "Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 18:17:38 +1000
Cc: "[GA]" <ga@dnso.org>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00927.html

(1)    Toss something like this at me again, and not only will I make sure it is
publicly documented as I did this time, but I will start a serious concerted
campaign to have the Names Council replace you, something that will not help the
"integrity of the list."

(2)    I consider your comments above to be absolutely and totally inappropriate
from someone in your position.

(3)    You should ask yourself if you really are that well suited to this
position, and if you are not, then you should consider stepping down.

(4)    It is not your role, or within your power, to seek an extension of the
rules by overextending their interpretation.

(5)    Nor is it appropriate to tell someone to not discuss specific instances
when the subject of the rules come up.

(6)    The question of whether you understood what the role of the GA chairs was
came up during the election, when it seemed you think it was a mandate for you
to carry our your own agenda.

(7)    That is NOT the case.  If I even suspect that is occurring, the Names
Council will begin hearing my concerns, and others will be asked to do the same
if they find themselves in agreement with me.

Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
To: DPF <david@farrar.com>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 02:28:44 -0700
Cc: ga@dnso.org
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00936.html
(1)    Prof. Froomkin's biases are clear and consistent.  He seeks to criticize
ICANN.  He seeks to do it vigorously and at every turn.

(2)    His motives might be less clear, though the instant he starts getting
public exposure for his efforts, then it is clear that he is serving to promote
his career.

Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] List Rules and Protocols
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 04:44:18 -0700
CC: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>, Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>, "[GA]"
<ga@dnso.org>
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg00944.html

(1)    But out of line demands by a Chair off list to participants is ok?  It is
bad "list" behavior to complain about inappropriate actions?

(2)    With a bad list Chair we cannot go forward either.

(3)    The threat is that the ALTERNATE Chair feels it is his position to expand
his role and the list rules without approval by us, and that he can send demands
to list participants to not discuss things because he doesn't like it.

(4)    There was no threat.  There was a very carefully laid out consequence to
inappropriate behavior by this alternate chair, that if he continued to act
inappropriately that complaints would be filed.

(5)    The post made to me that sparked it was not appropriate, and was sent
privately in order to fly under the radar.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss