[ga-abuse] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

I have posted the following to [ga-int] but note that Jefsey Morfin and
others have not subscribed to any of the sublists.  This means that
discussions on topics such as Alternate Roots, Trade Marks etc. will
continue to be carried on the [ga] as well as the relevant sublist.

The list rules require postings to be "relevant to the business of GA" and
it is hard to say they are off-topic just because there is a dedicated
sublist.

Thoughts anyone?

Patrick Corliss


----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@corliss.net>
To: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: [ga-int] <ga-int@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 12:53 PM
Subject: Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Dear Jefsey

Thank you for your critique.  All of the list monitors had the opportunity
to review Ms McKee's comments and none were minded to perform such a
thorough analysis.  Perhaps such notices can be simplified in future.

Use of wording like "I understand that Eric has received a warning" is
normal practice from a person who was not personally and directly involved.
I don't think you should read too much into such remarks.

As William S. Lovell wrote on Sat, 05 May 2001 18:49:51 -0700

> bandwidth spent in discussing sanctioning of members, actual sanctions,
> discussions of sanctions, etc., ought better to be spent on substantive
> issues . . .

However, if you do wish to discuss this issue, or list rules generally, I
would draw your attention to the Internal Processes [ga-int] mailing list
which has been specifically dedicated to that purpose.  You may subscribe to
this list by sending an email to Majordomo@dnso.org with the words
"subscribe ga-int" in the text part of the message.

I am sure you will appreciate my reposting your email to the [ga-int] list
for full and proper discussion by the DNSO General Assembly.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, GA

----- Original Message -----
From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker


> I repost that mail which has not hit the list for some reason.
>
> Dear all,
> After consideration and due consultation, I wish to make the following
> comments;
>
> 1) this decision is not valid since the rules - as WXW noted it - have not
> been followed. However I understand that this constestation has no value
> since only a vote of the GA could decide of it. Since a vote calls for an
> acknowledged motion by the Chair, a vote cannot occur and the GA is under
> the control of the list monitor(s) without any possible arbitration.
>
> 2) this decision does not affect the "full" ML version. So I will continue
> enjoyng Eric's interesting  posts.
>
> 3) the reason given "excessive use of abusive language not relevant to
> technical discussion" is very odd. It would mean that should the excessive
> use of abusive language be relevant to technical discussion it would have
> been acceptable. What is strange enough. But how may a list monitor
> designated to control the language abuse be competent in evaluating what
is
> relevant to a technical discussion. All the more than this ML is about
> evaluating what is relevant to the technical management of the DNS by the
> iCANN. So the whole issue of the list is a discussion of this very topic.
> This reason would institute a filtering or a censorship of the ML.
>
> 4) from reading the quoted mails, I find that the recurrent theme of Mr.
> Dierker is - according to him - a failure to manage by the Chairs. From
> participating to this ML I did not notice that Chairs have appropriately
> responded to Mr. Dierker neither positively nor negatively, nor even
> acknowledged the repeated complaints that the list monitor has
acknowledged
> for his own part. IMHO if the Chair is not responsible for the form of the
> first complaints (I do not consider here if Mr. Dierker is right or
> wrong),  he *is* responsbible by his silence for the repetition of Mr.
> Diecker posts and most probably for the increase in terms Mr. Diecker has
> used for attracting the attention of the Chair and in response of the lack
> of comment by the Chair.
>
> 5) may be my Frenglish, but it is not clear to me that list monitor is
sure
> or not that Mr. Dierker received a warning. What makes the whole decision
> still more confusing. The list monitor says "I understand that Eric has
> received a warning". The question is: "has him or has him received a
> warning be certain in the monitors mind", if not the suspension would be
an
> abuse.
>
> 6) in this ruling Kristy did obviously well in difficult
> circumstances.Thank you for having accepted and carrying that difficult
> task. But this could be used for some decorum reminder. Such a ruling is a
> justice decision, everywhere associated with some decorum. I therefore
> suggest that the Chair stabilizes a form the list monotors might use so
> that the concerned person is always named by his title, his forname and
his
> name.
>
> I therefore suggest:
> - that list monitors have carried their responsibilities, specialy Mrs
> Kristy McKee.
> - that they have been confronted to an abnormal situation they handled as
a
> group
> - that the Chairs should take the necessary steps for this not to happen
again
>    - neither should a Member be obliged to call repetedly to the Chair in
> vain, even harshly
>    - nor should list monitors feel obligated to decide in group
> - that Mrs. Kristy McKee accepts an appeal and relieves Mr. Dierker from
> the sentence.
> - that the Chairs should either remove the sentence or share it with Mr.
> Dierker..
>
> Jefsey