Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #437
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, May 7 2001             Volume 01 : Number 437

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:40:56 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga-abuse] Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

William,
the announcement of the list monitors was made by Danny on April 18; its 
subject line is "List Monitors", so it should be easily recognizable in the 
archives.

The list rules do not dictate how a list monitor arrives at a decision; the 
list monitors have chosen to adopt an internal procedure where a case is 
discussed between the appointed monitors before being announced.

You may rest assured that the one who is posting the suspension message has 
agreed with the suspension, and may assume that other members of the list 
monitor group have seen the proposal for suspension and have not disagreed 
with it.

In this particular case, I can assure you that I have participated in the 
discussion, and agree with the suspension.

                 Harald T. Alvestrand

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:37:13 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Reply to William

I am guilty.
I seconded Joop for Danny and Patrick, from his report of Melbourne's 
meeting, from Danny's personnal effort at the WG-Review (before he became 
too complex for me to follow..), from Patrick's genuine and dedicated 
effort at the TLDA (against all my interests, so I though I was fair and 
not biased).
I apologize for that.

On 06:42 06/05/01, William X. Walsh said:
>If only we had had more worthy candidates to choose from.

This was Marilyn Cade's question: when a candidate removes himself should 
we not restart from scratch, since someone who did not want to oppose him 
might be his natural substitute. I suppose the vote would have been quite 
different with four candidates.

>Roberto, do you mind if we clone you?

I wish we could, as probably most of us. But we have Danny and Patrick.

As I suppose no one wants to give them away the GA; there are two 
solutions: either we filter them, the list monitors etc... and use the full 
GA ML only, or we try to help them becoming reasonable Chair and co-Chair 
.. them to tell us.

I obviously hate the way they chair today and the way they make us waste 
our time and to some extent (cf. my yesterday mail) our money. But I have a 
lot of respect for the working capacity and the dedication of those two. So 
I still believe they could do well with the GA and the NC. Danny should 
only accept he is not the GA byhimself and Patrick he is not the Police 
Officer on Duty of the GA/ML Brigade, and us all to help them. When you 
chair for the first time an ML and such an ML as the GA, you know folks, it 
is not that easy: you have a right to error. But we cannot afford they keep 
on an erroneous tack.

Am I wrong?

Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 23:45:06 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda Item -- Budget

Dear Chair,
please accept that his is no part of our questionning on the chairmanship
of this list.

As usual you rise important and interesting topics. May be could you be
of some more help in:

On 06:52 06/05/01, babybows.com said:
>The registrar constituency has prepared an eighteen-page report detailing
>elements of the upcoming proposed 2000-2001 ICANN Budget.
>
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/doc00026.doc
>
>
>As funding will be an agenda item in Stockholm, perhaps (to echo the
>comments of Raul Echebarria on the ncdnhc list), this is the right moment to

quoting the url of the archive of this position?

>strongly propose that the DNSO's budget be included in ICANN's budget.

proceeding in a standard and positive way:

1) making this a initial motion so we may see what you formally propose
2) some may second you
3) Chair may acknowledge
4) some oppositions and ammendments may be presented
5) we try to reduce oppositions and integrate ammendments into a final 
draft that you can put to a vote
6) we come to Stockholm with at least one of the 10 or 20 resolutions I 
expected to see you make voted from your WG-Review work.

Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:07:14 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
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

On 01:09 06/05/01, Kristy McKee said:
>Eric & All Assembly Members,
>
>The List Monitor Committee has determined that Eric Dierker's posting 
>privileges will be suspended for two weeks beginning today Saturday May 5 
>until Saturday May 19, 2001.
>
>I am hopeful we agree to the decision made concerning Eric's use of 
>language on the list April 19th and 20th (April 5th & 8th are being 
>overlooked since he was a candidate at that time and presumably 
>campaigning) as many complaints have been received against Eric's posts.
>
>If you disagree, please review the rules you agreed to when you signed up 
>prior to beginning a discussion. 
>[http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html]
>
>Complaints were received about:
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01032.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01039.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01046.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01050.html
>Message: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01069.html
>
>After reviewing the complaints and many messages, we discovered the 
>reoccurring theme mentioned in the various complaints, which is the 
>excessive use of abusive language not relevant to technical 
>discussion.  In addition there are many personal attacks, insinuations, 
>and much of the commentary lacks clarity and good intention.
>
>I understand Eric has already received a warning for this behavior.  It is 
>the practiced policy for him to receive a two week suspension beginning 
>today, May 5, 2001.  I look forward to his participation in the group 
>again this May 19th, 2001.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Kristy McKee
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 00:28:55 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-review] Individuals' Constituency

Dear Jeff,
I think you are wrong using the word "though". It would be more correct to 
use the word "because".

On 09:04 06/05/01, Jeff Williams said:
>The ICANN BoD and the NC have made it clear that there is not interest on 
>their part for individuals domain name holders to be represented been 
>though they represent about 80% of all stakeholders.

And we should once for all accept that and act (not blah, blah) accordingly.

This means listing the different actions we may undertake as a group or as 
individuals auto-selected through such a group to react to that situation.

Jefsey

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:57:59 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda Item -- Budget

At 23:45 6/05/01 +0200, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>
>>strongly propose that the DNSO's budget be included in ICANN's budget.
>
>proceeding in a standard and positive way:
>
>1) making this a initial motion so we may see what you formally propose
>2) some may second you

If the Chair, or, better, Raoul Echeberria or the NCDNHC as a whole, is
willing to re-formulate this proposal as a proper GA motion, it will have
my support.

>3) Chair may acknowledge

This is really what the GA has been expecting of its Chairs from the moment
they were elected.

>4) some oppositions and amendments may be presented
>5) we try to reduce oppositions and integrate ammendments into a final 
>draft that you can put to a vote
>6) we come to Stockholm with at least one of the 10 or 20 resolutions I 
>expected to see you make voted from your WG-Review work.
>

I agree with this sentiment. 
We have elected our  Chairs in order to be able to move forward. Therefore,
I am very reluctant in joining anyone criticizing or attacking our Chairs,
having experienced how this easily leads to complete paralysis of an Assembly.

But I do call on our chairs to start acknowledging the positions on which
GA members want to move forward and to start measuring the sentiment on
these positions of the GA as a whole. 

- --Joop Teernstra LL.M.--  
the Cyberspace Association and 
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
Elected representative.
http://www.idno.org  

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:10:32 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker 

Jefsey,

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.  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 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.

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 12:51:57 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] 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 [email-masked] 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 <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:02:16 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker 

So far, I support the chair on these issues.  I see no indication that my
peers are acting in unfair/discriminatory manner on the List Monitor
issues/activities..  

Frankly, being a List Monitor is a hugh respponsibility and time commitment.
I applaud those who are helping the rest of us by doing it..

Marilyn
- -----Original Message-----
From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:11 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Re: [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker 

Jefsey,

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.  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 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.

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

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:12:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker 

Once again, this thread demonstrates that every act of
censorship/exile/eldering/monitoring/whatever-you-call-it results in a
spew of posts that distract from any serious business.

I persist in the belief that while a limit on the number of posts daily is
sensible, this other stuff is in fact counter-productive, whether or not
it is just or right (I think, by the way, that as a matter o f principle,
it's not right for a governance body)

In any case, I call on all list monitors to err on the side of rejecting
complaints to save us from the fog of irrelevance and/or the trouble of
having to killfile all these threads.  At some point, when you killfile
too much of a list, you start missing content.  There is content, right?

On Sun, 6 May 2001, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> 
> So far, I support the chair on these issues.  I see no indication that my
> peers are acting in unfair/discriminatory manner on the List Monitor
> issues/activities..  
> 
> Frankly, being a List Monitor is a hugh respponsibility and time commitment.
> I applaud those who are helping the rest of us by doing it..
> 
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Re: [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker 
> 
> 
> Jefsey,
> 
> 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.  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 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.
> 
> You have argued that their decision is invalid.  The Chair disagrees.  This
> decision stands until such time as I act upon an appeal from the impacted
> party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:18:05 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Call for Motions

Joop Teernstra has properly noted that the Chair should start "acknowledging
the positions on which GA members want to move forward and to start
measuring the sentiment on these positions of the GA as a whole."

In the past, such sentiments were put forth in an ill-defined motion process
that functioned without the benefit of a coherent rule set.  Discussions
have already commenced on the GA-INT list in an effort to remedy this
situation, and I would like to take a moment to express my appreciation to
both William Walsh and to Harald Alvestrand for taking up this issue in the
proper forum.

There are occasions however, when the need to get the job done within a
limited time frame will force one to work in the absence of a formalized
structure.  This is one of those times.  The General Assembly has expressed
a desire to "move forward"; as Chair, I acknowledge this sentiment and will
facilitate such efforts.

The floor is now open for motions.  Over the course of the next two weeks
these motions shall be debated, with a vote on the motions commencing 21
May, results to be posted on 28 May.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 13:52:26 +1000
From: "Co-Chair, DNSO GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Subscribing to [ga-full]

On Sun, 6 May 2001 23:12:48 -0400 (EDT), Michael Froomkin wrote:

> At some point, when you killfile too much of a list, you start missing
> content.  There is content, right?

I would remind Michael and others on the [ga] mailing list that you may
subscribe to [ga-full] by sending an email to [email-masked] with the
words "subscribe ga-full" in the text part of the message.

That list provides a complete and unexpurgated record of all postings
including those from persons who have had their posting rights temporarily
suspended.  You may then kill-file whoever you wish.

As an added bonus, you will also find that there is less delay in receiving
responses from the list mailer.

Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, GA

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:39:03 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello babybows.com,

Sunday, May 06, 2001, 7:10:32 PM, babybows.com wrote:

> Jefsey,

> 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.  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 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.

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

I see nothing in the rules that requires that the impacted party is
the only one who can appeal the decision (or even implies it).

Consider this an appeal of what appears could possible by an unfair
decision.

Also of the change in policy by the list monitors from the previously
posted policy, which said that list sanctions were unique to each
list, rather than the universal sanction they are not seeking and in
fact have exercised against Mr Dierker.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:41:11 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Subscribing to [ga-full]

Sunday, May 06, 2001, 8:52:26 PM, Co-Chair, DNSO GA wrote:

> Patrick Corliss
> Co-Chair, GA

Nice self created title.

In fact, you are the alternate chair, otherwise Danny would also be a
"Co-Chair."

Let's not get an overinflated view of our positions, ok?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:25:33 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

At 21:39 06.05.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Also of the change in policy by the list monitors from the previously
>posted policy, which said that list sanctions were unique to each
>list, rather than the universal sanction they are not seeking and in
>fact have exercised against Mr Dierker.

This matters belongs on the ga-int list.

The previous list rules belonged to the ga list, which was then the only 
list in existence.
The list monitors, after considering arguments both for and against, 
decided that until other policies were declared, the new lists should be 
considered sublists of the main list rather than completely independent 
list entities.

This is a judgment call; all of the lists belong to the GA, but since they 
did not exist at the time the list rules were written, the list rules did 
not describe how they related to the main list.

Again, this is a proper subject for the ga-int list.

               Harald

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 03:15:15 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Harald,

Monday, May 07, 2001, 2:25:33 AM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 21:39 06.05.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Also of the change in policy by the list monitors from the previously
>>posted policy, which said that list sanctions were unique to each
>>list, rather than the universal sanction they are not seeking and in
>>fact have exercised against Mr Dierker.

> This matters belongs on the ga-int list.

> The previous list rules belonged to the ga list, which was then the only 
> list in existence.
> The list monitors, after considering arguments both for and against, 
> decided that until other policies were declared, the new lists should be 
> considered sublists of the main list rather than completely independent 
> list entities.

> This is a judgment call; all of the lists belong to the GA, but since they 
> did not exist at the time the list rules were written, the list rules did 
> not describe how they related to the main list.

It doesn't matter.

The point was that previous posts regarding the list rules and these
lists indicated that in fact the policy would be that each list was
separate as far as this type of enforcement action.

The announcement made along with this particular sanction was in fact
a change in the policy, and as such it was inappropriate for it to be
applied to the enforcement action in question.

The enforcement action in question should be, at the very minimum,
modified to apply only to the GA list itself, or only to the lists
for which a valid complaint was acted on by a list monitor according
to the rules.

If you want to announce a rule and apply it to future actions, that
is one thing.

This amounted to an ex post facto implementation of the rule, and was
inappropriately handled.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 06:57:11 -0400 
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re:  [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

I apologize for mistyping, and therefore misspelling your name. That wasn't
intentional. Marilyn

- -----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dierker [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 12:20 AM
To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
Cc: 'babybows.com'; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

You know Mam that your missspelling of Hugh My middle name is both
antoagonistic
and obviously without concealment for your disdain for me! ;>}

"Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" wrote:

> So far, I support the chair on these issues.  I see no indication that my
> peers are acting in unfair/discriminatory manner on the List Monitor
> issues/activities..
>
> Frankly, being a List Monitor is a hugh respponsibility and time
commitment.
> I applaud those who are helping the rest of us by doing it..
>
> Marilyn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: babybows.com [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2001 10:11 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Re: [ADMIN] Two Week Suspension of Eric Dierker
>
> Jefsey,
>
> 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.
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 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.
>
> You have argued that their decision is invalid.  The Chair disagrees.
This
> decision stands until such time as I act upon an appeal from the impacted
> party.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #437
************************