Re: [ga-abuse] M1 against Russ Smith

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

Hi Kristy!

>M2 Comment: When Stuart posted the un-truths I belive he was attempting to
>slander Russ.  Although I agree Russ must be warned, Stuart should also be
>warned against his behavior.  I would support sending him a warning as well.
>Action: Warning

I respectfully disagree. This is the full text of the
first mail Stuart sent to the GA list:

 Mr. Smith has indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion, and
 his complaint was carefully considered by the Reconsideration
 Committee and the ICANN Board.  The committee's recommendation can be
 viewed at
 http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/rc00-1.htm.
 I think a review of that document.  A response to Mr. Smith's attempt
 to reargue the matter appears at
 http://www.icann.org/committees/reconsideration/committee-response-24apr00.htm.
 A fair review of those documents shows that Mr. Smith's allegation is
 not supported by the facts.
(http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc08/msg00329.html;
he resent this mail.)

In the second mail, he notes that there has indeed been
another reconsideration request unearthed and explains
where it has been found and why he does not follow up
directly. I don't find anything in the first mail quoted
above which appears to be slander on Russ Smith:
The sentence "A fair review of those documents shows that
Mr. Smith's allegation is not supported by the facts"
explicitly refers to "these documents", i.e. the two
reconsideration requests and the relevant mails by Russ
Smith, whereas "allegation" refers to the Russ Smith mail
quoted by Danny Younger:
 I have filed these in the past.  In some cases the answers were
 not responsive to the complaints.  In other cases ICANN refused
 to answer or post the submission.  I resubmitted some but they
 refuse to acknowledge or answer the submission.  The
 reconsideration system is a complete sham.

We certainly agree that it was not true that "Mr. Smith has
indeed sought reconsideration on just one occasion", but
Stuart Lynn has already admitted that he was wrong on this
and corrected himself. (BTW: To me it seems hard to make a
judgement about whether the allegation that the reconsideration
system is "a complete sham" is "supported by the facts"
or not without us making a judgement about the reconsideration
system ourselves -- which would seem to be overstepping
our scope and abilities.)

I'd much appreciate hearing more about your interpretation
of Stuart Lynn's message!

Best regards,
/// Alexander