Re: [ga-abuse] Decision

["Alternate Chair" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Dear Danny

I will start by saying that you might find my style offensive to you
personally.  I might think the same about you.  However, after huge effort
on my part I have received a communication from you setting out your
thinking.  This was not addressed to me personally (part of what I find
offensive) but at least you have made an attempt.

A large number of people are now involved in the communication process.  I
thank them all and ask their indulgence while we go through this necessary
process.  Please note that this list is archived by the DNSO Secretariat.

On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 19:31:47 -0400, you wrote:

> When we individually agreed to become members of the General Assembly,
> many
> of us understood the burden and toll that this would place upon us - the
> need to undertake research and steep ourselves in documents, the need to
> devote considerable time to reading and responding to messages, the need
> to make certain sacrifices (both financial and personal) in order to
become
> a better participant in the ICANN process.
>
> I regret that Patrick appears not to be willing to undertake such effort,

I find that comment gratuitously insulting.  However I will allow it as a
payback.  I have, in fact, been making a huge effort.  In fact I am less
distracted by other commitments (work, family etc) and almost certainly
spend more time even than you do.  You may argue whether my time is
well-spent but not that I don't make an effort.

> and has repeatedly called upon others to keep him informed, "How can I
> possibly know what's going on unless Danny (or somebody) tells me?"  "All
> I am asking is to be kept properly informed.  Preferably consulted."

The "repeatedly" probably refers to repeated attempts in one email.
However, I did make a post to the list.  It certainly does not refer to
repeated attempts over a long period of time which when combined with the
"unwilling to make an effort" comment implies that I lazily while away my
time calling upon others to do the work.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  In fact, the whole tone of your
email is a provocation which, if made on a public list, would warrant
sanction from a list monitor.

Nevertheless, we have established a framework of communication.  I see this
as cumbersome but necessary to counter what I see as your authoritarian
attitude.  Note that I feel comfortable about expressing my feelings.  I am
not making a factual claim or an insult.

So let's have a "rule 1" in this framework.  That we behave as if we are on
a public list (as monitored by Alexander Svennson).  I would ask him to
simply keep score and publish his assessment of who is being gratuitously
offensive.

> As Joanna Lane wrote in her response to Patrick, "Sorry, it is not my job
> to bring you up to speed on issues about which you, of all people, as an
> officer of the GA, should be fully informed."    Being a Chair is a
> full-time responsibility.  I have had to read every appendix in every
> registry contract, the NAIS 130-page report, all of the independent
> studies,
> all of the 3328 comments to the Review Working Group, all of the comments
> posted to every other prior working group, and to every official list,
> (council, agenda, intake, plan, etc.).  I have had to listen to each Names
> Council teleconference, review Scribe Notes from every single Board
> meeting going back over several years, monitor constituency and other
> policy mailing lists, and every list of the GA.

My suggested rule against gratuitous insults prevents me from commenting in
the way that comes to my mind.  I will sinply say that (1) there is no doubt
that you are doing much work and (2) it is not a competition between you and
me to see who can do the most work.  In any event I see this effort as
misdirected if you can't relate to *people*.

> With the job comes the responsibility of being sufficiently informed.  In
> the event that the Chair is not able to carry out his duties, the
> Alternate Chair is expected to take over that function.  At one point
Patrick
> wrote, "Do I have to trawl through 3328 emails to find out.  I will if I
have to
> but I will never forgive Danny if he makes me do that."  Sorry, but that
> comes with the territory,

You should consider that it may not be humanly possible for a person to
satisfy your expectations.  I am simply trying to direct our energies in the
most appropriate direction.  Cindy Merry made the point that it was a
worthwhile exercise.  You could have said that to me a month ago.  However,
time is limited and time spent in one direction comes at the expense of time
spent in another.

You wanted us to work together as a team.  You should communicate with me
what you think.  Then we can negotiate a suitable sharing of work.

In fact, it is my view that the volume of work needed is so onerous that we
need a staff equivalent to that of ICANN to keep up with it.  Even auDA, the
.au ccTLD, has a Board of 11 people, a full-time staff of three people,
contracts with external parties and the resources of the National Office of
the Information Economy to call upon.

> and so does the obligation to preside over plenary
> sessions of the Assembly if so required.  This was a fact known to every
> candidate that ran for the office of GA Chair - ignorance is no excuse.

Like any politician we do the best we can.  The voters can decide if our
efforts are satisfactory.  However, if you have information that you think I
need then you would be failing in your duty not to share it with me.

And it should not be too hard for you to respond to my email asking about
the GA-REVIEW.  Don't forget others on the list may not understand the
implications either and you owe it to them if not to me.

> Most of us are members of this Assembly because we believe in ICANN, in
> its mission and goals, and because we seek to improve our organization, to
> make it more efficient and responsive.  Others that participate on our
lists
> have different agendas.

I think that was exactly the point I made.  You contradict yourself below.

> I have been criticized by Patrick for placing a priority on Policy
> Recommendations for Operation of the .org TLD.    Patrick writes:  "you
> will note that he is pressing ahead with a huge 52K posting to the .ORG
> list.  I would have preferred that he spent the time building bridges with
> me first."
>
> Sorry, but I disagree.

Again you disagree.  Are you really telling me that you could not have sent
me a copy of your email to Elisabeth in which you set up the .ORG mailing
list?  Or taken even a moment to keep me informed?  That is the sort of
authoritarian approach that simply creates hostility.

Let me say this as clearly as I can.  You are more likely to achieve your
objectives if other people, such as myself, are working WITH you instead of
AGAINST you.

> We only have 20 days time within which to forge a
> community consensus on policy matters relating to the .org TLD, as we must
> respond to the Names Council by the 29th.  This project requires an
> intensive analysis of background documents so that all policy implications
> may appropriately be examined.

Documents are only half of the story.  People are the other half.

> As a result of the Stockholm session, the Names Council has responded to
> our plea for greater involvement in the processes of the DNSO and has
> reached out in an effort to involve the GA.  Our duty is clear; our focus
> should be upon our obligation to both properly research this matter, and
> to arrive at a documented consensus while engaging in the outreach
> required under the Bylaws.

That's not what you mean at all.  What you mean is:

> > MY focus WILL BE to properly research this matter, and to arrive at
> > a documented PRONOUNCEMENT while IGNORING the outreach
> > required under the Bylaws.

> Our DNSO Secretariat understands that very well.  Elisabeth Porteneuve has
> been an ardent supporter of the General Assembly and knows that if we are
> to accomplish our goal, we need to satisfy the requirement of outreach.
In
> her capacity as the Secretariat, she has prepared the structure to allow
for
> both outreach and meaningful discussion of this topic - the ga-org list.

If the DNSO Secretariat is communicating with you on an official basis then
I would appreciate not being kept in the dark.  I am dumbfounded that you
can't see that.

> This action did not require the approval of the Chair nor consultation
> with the Alternate Chair.  This action is an independent decision of the
> Secretariat, within her purview, and one that I fully support.

Wow !!  Are you shifting the blame to Elisabeth?  I can't believe you said
that.  I refrain from commenting until I make further inquiries.  However, I
do see a significant danger in having more lists.  We have too many already.
I suggested FIVE.  We now have SEVEN.  I am sorry that you are blind to that
problem.

I say that without making any comment on the merits of the .ORG argument.

> With regard to the general topic of lists... it is important to understand
> the nature of our Assembly.

It's empty statements like that which are seen as patronising.  They also
make your communications overly long.  I suggest you edit them out.  You
should also not use the three dots [...] as this suggests that there has
been an omission.  A dash [--] can be used in appropriate circumstances.

>  We as a group are not generally receptive to
> top-down decrees.  Our members are uncomfortable with officials that
> attempt to dictate to the Assembly.  It is one of the lessons that I am
> trying to learn.

There's hope yet !!  But you MUST mean it or find out the hard way.

> While Patrick has taken his role as List Administrator seriously, I
> am concerned by the heavy-handedness in his approach and by what
> appears to be an effort to "force" participants onto certain lists.

Again I am amazed you say that.  The ONLY reason I am taking a "heavy
handed" approach is because you are not setting a good example.  You seem to
think that you can just "set up" the lists and people will naturally
gravitate to them.  Again nothing could be further from the truth
particularly when some list participants have a vested interest in
sabotaging the process.  I have already named Jefsey.

> Patrick writes:  "Unfortunately two persons insist on posting all of their
> mail to the main GA list...  The other is Danny Younger.  I see that as
> sabotage of the worst sort."  Let me make my position clear -- No one will
> dictate to me the venue in which I will make my comments, and I am under
> no obligation to consult with the Alternate Chair prior to posting any of
> my comments.

This remarks shows your pledge *It is one of the lessons that I am trying
to learn* to be quite empty.  And I wasn't referring to your *comments* but
your decisions and your pronouncements.

I also presume you will have no objection if any member of this Assembly
posts to any list they feel like?  In that case my point is quite valid.
The new mailing lists are a sham.

> I choose to consult only with those that respect our efforts, those that
> refrain from the use of vulgarity, profanity, and personal attacks.

In direct non-compliance with my "Rule 1" I say that is an outright lie.  My
attempts to communicate with you were unsuccessful well before I descended
to vulgarity etc.  I made that clear in my email but you have <snipped>
those comments.

> As Chair, I posted an informative message regarding the Names Council
> decision to invite the General Assembly to select a representative for
> their Individuals' Constituency Task Force on the main GA list.  I
received
> the following message from Patrick:
>
> Hi Danny
> Why the fuck didn't you post this message on GA-ICANN?
> You could have referenced it on the GA list.
> And who has approved the new GA-ORG ?
> What's the point if you won't use the sublists?
> Patrick
>
> If this is how Patrick has chosen to communicate with me,

I am afraid you are quite insensitive as shown by your coment * I am
under no obligation to consult with the Alternate Chair prior to posting
any of my comments*  However, I have now got your attention.

> and if he has
> "written thousands of private emails to people like Jim  Fleming"  and has
> "invested a huge amount of time and energy in it", as part of his "Stage
> One" strategy, I am deeply concerned (as I would be by the actions of any
> given zealot for any given cause).

I ignore the "zealot" insult.  Please note your own remark about civility.

> A List Administrator should not be
> sending out thousands of private emails - this is not his job, nor is it a
> practice that I have sanctioned.

I am sorry but you cannot dictate to me who I write private emails to.

> Neither have I agreed to a "Stage Two" strategy "to get the participants
> using the right mailing lists".

Excuse me, Danny, why did you set them up if you don't want people to use
them?  As Mr Spock would say "That's not very logical".

> It is not the role of a List Administrator to force compliance.  If a
> comment posted to the main list also deserves to be posted on a
> topic-specific list, then the Administrator may take it upon
> himself to re-post the document for everyone's benefit - that should be
> the extent of his involvement.  While Patrick argues that his actions have
> caused "a bit of angst", I would argue that his actions are downright
> objectionable and are not favorably viewed by the membership as a whole.

Ahha !!  And your communication to me was when exactly ?

> I do not agree with Patrick's conclusion that "All items relating to
> ICANN, including ICANN restructuring, must go to GA-ICANN."
> Our membership is at liberty to post wherever they wish.  I will not
> condone dictating to our membership where they can or cannot post
> - that would be an abuse of authority.

As I say.  It doesn't matter, the lists are effectively dead now.

> Patrick has taken the point of view that certain members in our Assembly
> are to be regarded as "dangerous opponents", and points with pride to
> the fact that "the only person being attacked" is Patrick.

Excuse my rhetoric.  I am trying, without much success, to communicate.

> This is not a healthy
> perspective, nor a wholesome strategy.   The goal (calming the list), is
> laudable, the approach is not.  When our membership focuses upon a task,
> when we decide to generate work-product as a result of consensus-building
> discussions, the flaming dies down rather rapidly.

I'd agree with the assessment.  I can point you to where I said that onlist
a month ago.  Nice to see that you agree with me !!  However, you have taken
no steps whatsoever to set an environment for people to do that.  I've
explained that in my email but you have <snipped> those comments.

> We do not require a
> single human target to be the recipient of our collective venom.

I didn't say it was a *requirement*.

> I am further concerned by Patrick's unabashed course of action that begins
> with threats, personal attacks on list, and continues with swearing,
> ranting and raving.  This is not behavior appropriate for anyone selected
> to serve as a List Monitor.
>
> It is for these reasons that I am asking Patrick to offer his resignation
> as List Monitor, and to end his duties as List Administrator.

It seems that you have taken the unilateral step to sack me from a
non-exitent position.  I find that remarkable.  However, it seems that you
have also instructed Elisabeth to cancel copies of the error output from the
list.

I am sorry that you do not seem to be making any real attempt attempt to be
less authoritarian.  That's approach will come back and bite you very hard.
If nothing else you will not succeed in any of your objectives.  Together we
might have stood a chance.  Alone you will fail.

> Patrick and I are in disagreement over several matters (and occasional
> disagreement is to be expected in an organization such as ours), but I do
> hope to arrive at suitably civil relationship with him because he is to be
> respected as our elected Alternate Chair.

I don't think you show your respect by sacking me.

>  I will not however respond to
> any more messages that are laden with vulgarity and threats.

Excuse my laughter.  You do not respond to messages from me of any sort.

>  I have my job
> to do, and Patrick needs to get on with the business of making himself
> sufficiently informed so that he can replace me if and when circumstances
> warrant.

You can making sure that I am *sufficiently informed* by sharing some of
your thinking.

> I hope that by freeing Patrick from these other duties, he can
> focus upon this mission.

I doubt that is your reason at all.  You see my efforts to persuade people
to use the right list as counter-productive.  Instead of discussing that
with me as any *people-oriented* person might have done, you have made a
unilateral decision to sack me from a non-existing position.

What you forget is that I am still the Alternate Chair.  Anything I did as
List Administrator I can as easily do as Alternate Chair.

However, there is no point.  You have shown that you are not prepared to
assist in making the system work.  That's a pity because it was the one sure
way that the GA could have achieved a result.

My resignation as list monitor us not an option.  If you genuinely wish to
lessen my workload I will agree not to adjudicate on any cases unless and
until the situation is resolved.

Finally, I will say that you have edited far too many of my constructive
comments.  As a result your response has distorted my views in a way that I
find academically reprehensible.  For example you made no reference to any
of my comments about your failure to respond to past attempts at
communication nor to the system of *terms of reference*.  You have also
completely misunderstood the dynamics of the lists.

I refrain from commenting further except to say that whilst I find your
response inadequate, the fact that you have responded at all, albeit
indirectly through [ga-abuse],  is a significant step forwards.

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss