Re: [ga-abuse] Dispute resolution

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

Hi Alexander

> We have come to the point where the language used on GA-abuse
> is more abusive than on the GA list which we are supposed to
> monitor. (GA-abuse-abuse anyone?)

My apologies to the list monitors for my bad language.  I have now tried
every way I know to get Danny to consult with me:

(1)    simple request
(2)    negotiation
(3)    begging, pleading and cajolling
(4)    threats and abuse
(5)    involving a mediator (Jonathan Weinberg)
(6)    reference to other administrators (List Monitors)
(7)    personal attacks on list (follow up of threats)
(8)    swearing, ranting and raving

If I have missed anything please advise.  I can't afford to phone him.

> Several of us have tried more than once to convince Patrick to
> keep calm, not to respond quickly to provocations and to ignore
> specifically those who he sees as opponents.

Thank you.  That's not my point.  My strategy has worked quite well.  In
fact I have invested a huge amount of time and energy in it.  All of the
flame wars have stopped.  None of the participants are attacking each other.
I have written thousands of private emails to people like Jim  Fleming.  In
fact the only person being attacked is me.  And much less frequently.  Eric
Dierker tried it on again just now because he knew I was in a weak position.

Again with super effort I have managed to get cross-postings down to almost
nothing.  Even Jeff Williams is behaving himself reasonably well.  On the
odd occasion that he tries to cross-post he uses separate emails.

I have now moved onto Stage 2 which is to get the participants using the
right mailing lists.  If course this causes a bit of angst but it has been
working reasonably well.  I changed the names of three lists to help this
process.

Unfortunately two persons insist on posting all of their mail to the main GA
list.  Most everybody else follows along like sheep.  One is Jefsey and I've
got him under control.  The other is Danny Younger.  I see that as sabotage
of the worst sort.

> Unfortunately,
> he is threatening to make further attacks on Danny. Kristy has
> suggested that the two of them work it out; I'm less optimistic
> whether this is possible.

It's simple enough.  I want Danny to work with me to encourage people to use
the most appropriate list.  All items relating to ICANN, including ICANN
restructuring, must go to GA-ICANN.  It would be stupid beyong belief to
have a list called GA-ICANN and then post ICANN-related items to another
mailing list.

It is a sure invitation to confusion. A recipe for chaos.
However I am open to negotiation if Danny would make an effort.

> Patrick seems to be particularly frustrated with the burden
> of list management, even though it seems to me that he is
> perhaps doing more than is needed there.

OUT Mail.  I have been receiving 200 emails a day in bounced OUT mail from
Roeland Meyer alone.  Some time ago (before ICANN) I asked Elisabeth about
this {Harald was involved) and she told me to wait seven days.  I don't
agree.  I put it to the list.  Even WXW doesn't agree.  I have asked
Elisabeth to reduce this to three days.

IN Mail.  We have cross-posts, non-member posts and other IN mail rejects.
These MUST be returned to the sender automatically.  I am not technically
proficient but I have been told it can be done.  That will act as a sanction
to people like Jeff Williams.

CROSS Mail.  By this I mean postings to the wrong list.  The problem could
easily be solved with Danny's help.  I'm not talking about work here just
that Danny sets a good example and joins with me in asking people to
conform.  I'm very exposed doing this all myself.

> I would suggest to Patrick
> that he concentrates on the non-administrative part of the GA's
> work,

We must all do what we think right.  I have suggested a "terms of reference"
for ICANN restructuring.  I have explained this onlist.  You all must have
seen it.  It's a standard protocol used by Governments all over the world.
An issue is referred to the appropriate Working Group.  They produce a
report.  It comes back to the main list for a vote.

NOBODY has disagreed.  It's sensible.  Let's do it.

> discussing the issues and perhaps abstaining from the
> GA-abuse. More importantly, I would again urge him not to
> answer to provocations.

As I said I don't see that as a significant problem any longer.

The list management I'm referring to is trying to structure the system in a
way that will generate some output in the form of a proposed policy
formulation.  Believe me, I'd much rather just unsubscribe from all of the
lists except GA and GA-ROOTS.  I will have succeeded when we can ALL make
that sort of choice.

People interested in UDRP can subscribe to UDRP etc. etc.  If we don't do
that the whole system of sublists is a sham and we might as well scrap the
whole idea.

> GA Chair and Alt.Chair definitely don't need to agree on all
> matters, but they should treat each other with at least as
> much respect as all other GA members.

Danny attacked me during the election.  That was a lie as he knew my
association with the alt.roots from, Melbourne.  He "disagreed" with me
onlist recently without communicating with me provately.  I can, if you
wish, show you several responsible emails that Danny has not responded to.
My tolerance level is diminishingly small.

> However, keeping up an
> aggressive and vulgar language in my opinion disqualifies for
> GA administration and list monitoring.

You can think that.  I've explained my rationale at the start of this email.

With the justification of your suggestion, Danny can now move to sack me.
What he can't do is sack me as Alternate Chair as two can play at that game.
As well, he will have demonstrated his failure as a leader.  That would be a
mistake on his part.

Believe me, I am not asking much.  Just for Danny's support.  If he choses
to escalate this fight observers will be even more convinced that the GA is
a worthless forum.

> Best regards,
> /// Alexander

You too, Alexander

Regards
Patrick Corliss