[ga-abuse] Re: [ga] Re: [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Mr. Chairman,
Mr. co-Chaiman,
dear List Monitors,
dear Members;

this is a formal call to the order of the Chair of this ML. I ask list
monitors to consider this also as a formal complant against the
Chair as a posting Member.

I therefore start sending it to ga-abuse by courtesy to the official
list monitors and to the "unoffocial ones" (persons I do trust for
their judgement). I call for their remarks if they found this mail
hurting for them so I may correct it appropriately.

I will then post it on the GA as a matter if of concern to all.


1. as everyone may note from my remark, I praised the list
     monitors for their dedication and outstanding (yet IMHO
     unnecessary work) under the current Chair.

     Since the Chair wants to live in a complaining word, taking
     unpaid hours from volunteers for nothing (so many hours
     wasted kust for this sentence against Eric Dierker) I thererfore
     consider  the following as a complainable derision of mine.

On 04:10 07/05/01, babybows.com said:
>I would remind you that all of the List Monitors are volunteers.  They are
>your peers and fellow members of this General Assembly that have accepted
>the exceedingly difficult responsibility of safeguarding list decorum.

2. as indicated I took time and advise before posting my remarks.
     It is not to me to disclose them. But this response shows that
     it was not coordinated with list monitors and further demonstrates
     how right I was in saying that list monitors do suffer from the
     current chairing style.

     I can unfortunately only take advantage form the following
     sentence to remind the Chair that reducing the ML
     misbehaviour he describes should his first target instead of
     obviously fueling it. Also that I publicly proposed him our
     friendly help to such a peacemonger target.

     Respectfull to the Distinguished Members of this list I
     submit that posts, as the one I respond to, tend to create more
     complaints, more disputes, more waste of time and money
     and to lead to the eventual distinterest of everyone.

>They have an incredibly hard job to do, one that you did not volunteer
>to undertake, and they have committed long tedious hours assessing
>and responding to the large number, let me repeat, large number of
>complaints sent to ga-abuse.

    This personal remark is out of order. On this case I probably
    spent more time including in exchange with official and unofficial
    list monitors than the Chair. Or he would know.

>This list has for too long suffered the burden of
>behavior that should not be tolerated.  There are an enormous number of
>complaints because those that expect a minimum degree of civility can no
>longer abide by the abuse that has become rampant on the GA lists.

    To close that part may I remind the Chair that under his
    predecessor this list had only one midly active list monitor.
    It was under a good - sometimes teasing yet efficient -
    nearly frienship, and achieved some motions to be subimtted,
    acknowledged, discussed and even voted.

    I submit that since the Chair has been elected - under the action
    of the preceeding Chair - this list has achieved nothing but disputes.


3. I wish to remember the Chair that the Members of this list are his
     peers and fellows and cannot tolerate to be treated as "clowns", a
     word I used as a question to the Chair about his wording due to
     my lack of understanding of  English subtelties and that received
     the public and  private confirmation of several serious and unbiased
     linguists from this list, and yet no response from the Chair.

     The Chair manages/own(?) his own company. We are a certain
     number on his list in the same case. He obvsiously have some
     management and experience. We also are a certain number
     on this list. He has a certain knowledge of the legal and technical
     issues. I dare to say we are a certain number on this list too,
     may be some with more legal or more technical knowledge.

     This means that the Chair has all the capacities to understand
     and conduct his fuctions in a respectful way. I submit from his
     posts that he does not do it, and since it is not by incapacity it
     can only be on purpose.

     Such a purpose has not been disclosed when he was a
     candidate. As the first one having seconded his candidacy
     I therefore feel betrayed and I did apologized to this list for
     what I consider now as a mistake. (I publicly proposed to
     help the Chair so we maight alltogether correct that mistake
     for the ML and or the Chairs best).

     I therefore consider being an appropriate person to submit that
     unless the Chair discloses such a  purpose and has it approved
     by this GA, his election by  this GA is invalid. I acknowledge
     this does not removes the valididty of his election by the NC,
     but would remove its legitimacy.

4. The wording seems to me in opposition with a peer to peer
     relation.

>You have argued that their decision is invalid.  The Chair disagrees.  This
>decision stands until such time as I act upon an appeal

    I am not interested at all to know that the Chair disagrees.
    I volunteered that the decision *is* invalid. It is, or it is not.
    There is no decision but abuse if it is invalid.

    This can only be decided by a vote of this ML. As I have
    noted it, there is no more voting possibility on his list,
    what is an obvsious abuse per se. Hence my call to the
    order in front of at least one abuse (no vote possibility)
    and possibly two (the decision about Mr. Dierker).

>from the impacted party.

    I submit that I am the impacted party, as are all the other
    distinguished Members of this list. This over directive
    attitude has obviously lead to the positions of Mr. Dierker.
    It is therefore arguable that the true guilty is the Chair,
    hence this call to the order. Members have wasted time,
    money, interest so we all are negatively impacted.

    I also submit that Mr. Dierker is not the by far the most
    impacted party. Mr. Direker's positions have known this way
    a certain additional publicity and a very limited attention from
    the Chair responding to his wishes. The impacted party is the
    list deprieved from a "dotcommer" contribution of high interest.

    It is worth noting that the exclusion of Mr. Dierker is the
    exclusion of an opponent to the Chair (as a candidate) and
    that Mr. Dierker's language has not been found hurting as
    such, but only because it was - in fact - opposing the Chair
    rather than amusing the Chair (what we may construe from
    the decision wording).

5. As a general comment, I want to repeat that chairing an ML
    like the DNSO/GA is not simple and calls for a dedication
    and experience that the Chair obviously has not (the co-Chair
    has certainly the dedication, I prasie him for that even if I
    disagree for his appraoch].

    As having lead several people to vote for him, I do feel
    betrayed by this attitude. I proposed the Chair my help to
    correct this situation and several have supported me.

    I am, we are here to represent the International Internet
    Community to defend their interests in consensus uncovering
    and in advising the BoD as well as taking advantage of the
    ideas discussed here for our own business or satisfaction.

     I will be loyal to them all. Helping our Chairs if they accept
     our help to behave as expected from them. Fighting them
     if they want to continue being a [planed?] impeachment to
     the best interest of the community and of he iCANN.

     If to summarize my demand on behalf of all those we have
     the duty to represent, the duty of the Chair is to be a
     catalyst for things to be build together, not a director
     for his ideas to be supported.

Jefsey Morfin
Chair, world@wide foundation