[ga-abuse] Re: [PRIVATE] List Monitors

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

FYI Patrick,

I do not appreciate the patronizing tone, nor the lies. The post that you
publicly proclaimed breached the rules on my part was in fact sent by me as
a private complaint to ga-abuse@dnso.org and copied to Michael Froomkin
only, all well within the boundaries set by existing rules.

Do not now try to deny that you received it and posted it to the list,
against all list moderation rules to keep such complaints private. I am not
a prolific complainer. Nevertheless, using your judgement, or lack of it, as
List Moderator, you saw fit to post this to the public archive, together
with various other false accusations, made in response to a post that was
simply intended to move the issue of list rules forward in a constructive
way, which for some reason best known to yourself, you decided to take
personally and respond inappropriately by any standards, destroying the good
work I was attempting to do, which was unrelated to you in any direct way.

Of course I am not willing to waste my time if this is a taste of what is to
come under your stewardship of the list.

Since everybody knows my original complaint was not made in public, they too
now fear their own will end up in the same place. That is one of the most
damaging things you could have done to the list if you tried. I have always
tried to show respect to the list monitors and Chairs, but this behaviour
amounts to gross negligence in my rule book and certainly, there are
questions to be answered before you should continue in any official
capacity. I see no constructive result from your moderation in the last few
days, only anarchy, which the last I saw, Roeland and Roberto had to stop by
extreme measures, being out of control in your hands. This resulted in Chris
Ambler and myself resigning, without each other's knowledge, but almost
simultaneously so far as I am aware and both in response to the same post.

This is not the first time you and I have had words about posting private
information in public and it is not without significance that you attack me
now, just as my work begins to focus productively on GA rules, including
areas that you may well wish to avoid, given possible conflicts of interest.
There is a motivation to be found in that respect, if one wants to go so far
as that.

I regret I am not willing to return to any list on which you are a
moderator. It is my personal opinion that you show very poor judgement for
the level of responsibility you have taken on, combined with some evidence
of deviousness in your treatment of at least myself, if not others,
amounting to a very dangerous combination to place the future of DNSO at
risk. I am therefore resigning from further participation in the GA in
protest until such time as you are removed from office.

It remains to be said that I have no doubt that Danny has the leadership
skills, knowledge, honesty, integrity and talent to bring the GA forward to
the next stage of its development, with or without a Co-Chair and certainly
he has my support in that endeavor.

Thank you for letting me have my say.

Sincerely,
Joanna

on 4/17/01 4:53 PM, Patrick Corliss at patrick@quad.net.au wrote:

> Hi Joanna
> 
> I'm sorry to hear that you've unsubscribed.  So has Christopher Ambler.  Both
> of
> you are valuable assets to the work of the GA.  We will be sorry to lose you.
> 
>> I have unsubscribed to the list. You might want to check your header on that
>> complaint you say I filed to the list. You are ga-abuse@dnso.org aren't you?
> 
> You may have misunderstood me.  I was saying that the posting you made may
> have
> breached the posting rules.  I might be wrong but I have not seen any
> complaint
> made BY you against somebody else.  If you have made a complaint please
> advise.
> 
> My own email address is <patrick@quad.net.au>.  The email address that you're
> referring to is a very small list with the following five members:  Elisabeth
> Poteneuve, Roberto Gaetano, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Danny Younger and myself.
> 
> Any posting to that list will immediately be distributed to thosse five
> people.
> It is a convenient mechanism for accepting complaints.  Hence the name,
> "abuse".
> 
> We are currently appointing three new list monitors to replace Harald who will
> step down.  Roberto is not interested in participating at this time.  Harald
> will stay on for a month as a mentor and guide to the new list monitors.
> Thanks, Harald ;-)
> 
> When the transition is complete, the [ga-abuse] list will have five members
> viz
> the Chair, the Co-Chair and three List Monitors.  My view is that we need
> three
> monitors so that a majority of two can determine the outcome.  Makes for fewer
> appeals !!
> 
> It's also my view that we will tighten the list up very shortly.  I'll advise
> you further on the results of our efforts.  Please ask if I should not get
> back
> to you.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> Best wishes in your endeavours.
> Patrick Corliss
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Joanna
>> 
>> on 4/17/01 1:46 PM, Patrick Corliss at patrick@quad.net.au wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Joanna
>>> 
>>> David Crocker.  Here's another one:
>>> 
>>> From: Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
>>> To: babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>
>>> Cc: <ga@dnso.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 1:41 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [ga] Rules & Protocols Committee
>>> 
>>> At 06:05 AM 4/17/2001, babybows.com wrote:
>>>> This pattern of constant sniping and badgering must come to an end.
>>> 
>>> It probably does not further the stated goal to have an elected GA official
>>> engage in slander.
>>> 
>>> d/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
>>> To: <ga-abuse@dnso.org>; <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:45 PM
>>> Subject: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Prof. Froomkin's biases are clear and consistent.  He seeks to criticize
>>>>>> ICANN.  He seeks to do it vigorously and at every turn.  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.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I have to agree that this comment about Professor Froomkin is deliberately
>>>> portraying a colleague in a derogatory manner. This is an outrageous
>>>> statement to make, amounting to character assassination. Sorry, I'm not
>>>> actually sure who said it, as it's a long thread involving several people.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Joanna
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>