Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols

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

Dear Joanna

Whilst I understand your general sentiments some of what you have said is
misdirected and not relevant at this particular time.  The Chair has said:

On Monday, April 16, 2001 3:28 PM
Subject: [ga] List Monitors Needed

> I support the initiative of our Co-Chair Patrick Corliss who has called for
> increased attention to list decorum.  He is also correct in noting that the
> General Assembly has need of volunteers to function as List Monitors.
> Please forward your expressions of interest accordingly.   Thank you.

My initial comments were made onlist to Christopher Ambler in response to a
posting he made which referred to a posting by Kent Crispin.  I did not want to
get involved in the substantive issue merely to rermind people that there was a
proper procedure if anyone wanted to submit a complaint.

My comment were quite clear and very moderate along the lines of:

> I would remind everybody, without exception, that list protocols as
> outlined on the DNSO website must be respected.  Should anyone
> have a complaint, they should address it to [ga-abuse] in accordance
> with the proper procedures.

Christopher Ambler responded by saying

> There was no personal attack at all in my post.

I was therefore compelled to post another message clarifying that aspect:

> My comments were not meant to suggest that there was.  Such issues
> are determined by the List Monitors on receipt of a complaint in the
> proper form.

It was then that William Walsh decided to intervene.  My whole purpose of asking
people to make complaints to the list monitor was to reduce the volume of such
postings.  Once my efforts were undermined, this became impossible.

Since then William has made several more postings as have several other persons.
David Crocker took up the comment originally made by Kent Crispin which led you
to say:

> I have to agree that this comment about Professor Froomkin is deliberately
> portraying a colleague in a derogatory manner. This is an outrageous
> statement to make, amounting to character assassination. Sorry, I'm not
> actually sure who said it, as it's a long thread involving several people.

As this is EXACTLY what I was trying to prevent, I find it most surprising that
you should join in the general criticism of my role.  In fact, as I had already
drawn the issue to your attention, your proper course of action was to make your
complaint to [ga-abuse].  You have left yourself open to another complaint.

It would not be improper for me to write to you privately with a reminder that
you may have breached the rules.  This at least would give you the opportunity
to mitigate any grievance before a complaint was lodged.  I have every intention
of using my good judgment to decide what is and what is not appropriate.

I therefore decided to write privately to William along the following lines:

> You are not in a position to judge how many complaints are received on
> a daily basis in respect of comments such as these.  The fact that people
> are disposed to make complaints suggests that the issue of "ad hominem"
> attacks is a matter of concern.

> The posting by Kent Crispin falls into the category of making comments
> of a personal nature.  It suggests that Michael Froomkin is biased.  Chris
> Ambler's response was unfair as he attributed to Kent Crispin what was
> said by Dave Crocker.

> All you are doing is undermining the integrity of the list.

I find there is nothing objectionable in these explanatory comments.  They are
clearly reasonable and private.  I concluded my remarks by saying:

> If you want to discuss the rules, please do so without discussing cases
> which may come before the List Monitors.  I'll post an extract of the rules
> onlist.

Clearly William took objection to this request. There are two important issues
involved.  One is that further discussion would interfere with the List Monitors
ability to adjudicate.  Another is the general trend to argument on the list.

It is really not sensible to be inundated with complaints from everybody when it
is not at all clear who started, who responded and who makes it worse.  It would
lead, in the worst case, to a general suspension of too many people.

In my view, William has made several unsupported criticisms.  The basic rule
says "respect to the participants is mandatory".   Note the word "respect".

The rule continues to say that "messages must observe a minimum of decorum,
including not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander."

It is easy to see that this rule has been breached.   In particular I find that
my moderate, private letter to William X. Walsh was reposted to the list (in
itself not showing respect to the list participants) and mischaracterised as:

(a)    exceeding my authority
(b)   demanding and unreasonable
(c)    inappropriate and improper
(d)    outside the scope of the rules
(e)    an expansion of my role

As well, having identified a lack of "respect to the participants" my attempt to
moderate the onlist behaviour was subsequently undermined as I predicted.
Bringing the Co-Chair into disrepute allowed other participants to engage in the
same behaviour.  I have tried very hard to show due respect to my critics.

I now note the Chair's post in which he has called for a lifting of standards.
It is my view that the above rules already cover the behaviour complained of.
Whilst it might be appropriate to clarify the rules more precisely, the present
rules are easily interpreted.  The most difficult aspect is determinig the most
suitable penalty.  I feel that two weeks supension is often not desirable.

As I understand it it, you value your own privacy.  You wrote:

> In an organization that is run in an open and transparent manner, an
> officer commenting on GA business cannot expect to find sanctuary
> in rules related to matters of personal privacy.

If I, or anyone else, wrote to you in a harassing or threatening fashion I would
expect you to report the matter to the proper authorities.  You would then be
covered by "qualified privilege".  However, IANAL.

Such proper authorities could include, in the first instance, a persoin's
supervisor or superior officer.  In the case of the GA, it could include the
Chair or even the Names Council.  This is a matter that may need to be
determined.  I don't know what the situation is in the reverse case.

What is improper however, is to threaten, badger and bully me to perform my role
in a manner subservient to any member of this list.  In fact I already wrote the
following comments onlist to Mr Walsh:

On Tuesday, April 17, 2001 6:39 PM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [PRIVATE] List Rules and Protocols

> As you have challenged and threatened me on the very first occasion I tried to
> bring some moderation to the list, I would ask you to propose a motion of
> no-confidence in the Co-Chair.

Mr Walsh has since replied to the effect that this is not possible.  In the
circumstances, he can take whatever action he feels is appropriate.

My view is that this sort of behaviour wastes everybody's time.  I cannot
understand why mature, sensible and intelligent people should try so hard to
sabotage our efforts to progress the agenda of the General Assembly.

As I have said repeatedly, it also brings the whole General Assembly into
disrepute.  I am quite confident that Mr Walsh will respond and thus provoke
further debate.  In fact I note that the issue is still being canvassed onlist.

If you wish to show that my private letter to Mr Walsh, quoted above, is
improper, please do so.  My view is that my approach was designed to spare the
list from exactly the sort of personal attack you complained about (above).

I also believe that your hypothetical debate (below) could have been postponed
until there is something worthy of consideriation as a genuine complaint.

We could, for example, set up the Review Working Group mailing list first.  At
present we need mailing lists, working groups, comment on the review, a DNSO
Secretariat, funding, list monitors and even an agenda for what we are going to
do.  Instead we are bogged down by this little exercise in futility.

Please believe me when I tell you that many people are being driven away from
this list.  I now intend to gather statistics to demonstrate this effect.

Of course the issue is not resolved because the List Monitors will now have to
deal with the flood of complaints against you, me and half a dozen other people.

No wonder we don't get any real work done @!!

Given your appeal for openness and transparency I post this to the list.  I also
risk being suspended myself.  If this happens I'll see you in two weeks time.

Yours Sincerely
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect


----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>; Patrick Corliss
<patrick@quad.net.au>
Cc: [GA] <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:46 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules and Protocols


> on 4/17/01 5:33 AM, Joop Teernstra at terastra@terabytz.co.nz wrote:
>
>
> >> As set down, they seem to fairly vague:-
> >>
> >> With respect to personal privacy vs. professional disclosure.
> >
> > Good point. Private threats or insults against an elected  list Chair
> > should be sanctioned like other bad list behavior.
>
> For me, this issue is not about private insults on the list, it is about how
> the GA should deal with complaints against its officers.
>
> This distinction might be helpful:-
> .
> 1) What is said between two or more members of the General Assembly in the
> course of private correspondence is of no concern to other members, whether
> or not the contents relate to GA business. This would be a personal matter
> subject to privacy concerns and should not be posted to the public archive
> unless the contents are subject to other rules in force relating to
> professional disclosure (to be agreed).
>
> 2) What is said by an officer of the GA in the course of undertaking their
> duties, is of concern to other GA members. Officers represent not only
> themselves, but also they represent the GA as a whole by their actions.
> While it is both desirable and necessary for officers to communicate in
> private from time to time, as they see fit, the method of communication
> should not have a bearing on the standards the GA can reasonably expect
> their officers to meet. In an organization that is run in an open and
> transparent manner, an officer commenting on GA business cannot expect to
> find sanctuary in rules related to matters of personal privacy.
>
> Whether or not the procedure that was followed in this particular instance
> is considered the best way to deal with a complaint against an officer of
> the GA is a matter of debate, but I suggest a formal procedure must be
> established to avoid possible future misunderstandings, as clearly there is
> not one in place on which all have agreed.
>
>
> > It is very easy to lose a list Chair and without Chairs we cannot go
forward.
> > These are threats that concern us all.
>
> I agree, which is why everybody needs to be absolutely clear about what are
> the correct procedures at their disposal when something goes wrong. Even
> Chairs should be subject to sanctions, but equally, they should be extended
> the same courtesy as every other member in that respect- private evaluation
> of the complaint by a small group of their peers.
>
> Personally, I would have thought it better to push a complaint against an
> officer *upwards* to another officer, (in this case, to the Chair for
> comment and guidance), rather than pushing it *downwards* to the GA, (which
> inevitably causes disruption, hostility and even instability on the list).
>
> In the almost inconceivable circumstances that both Chairs and all three (or
> more) list moderators would be the subject of complaints at the same time,
> then, and only then, would I suggest consulting the GA openly as a "last
> resort".
>
> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Regards,
> Joanna
> >
> > -joop
> >
> >
>
>
>



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