Re[6]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Roberto,

You may not agree, but the appeals mechanism clearly gives the chair
the ability to overturn a moderator decision.

Thursday, June 21, 2001, 10:38:14 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> William, Earl,

> William X. Walsh wrote:
>>
>>There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
>>overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
>>today.

> I beg to disagree.
> I did not overturn decisions, or at least I never meant to do so.
> In two cases I used the privilege of the Chair to lift a sanction, an act 
> that is more similar to "grace" than to "rule".
> IMHO, the Chair does not have the power to overturn List Monitors decisions. 
> Otherwise we would have also the possibility of the Chair applying sanctions 
> following a complaint that the List Monitors have dismissed.


> About the general issue on transparency and public discussions on complaint 
> process, raised by Earl and others, I would like to ask a question: "What is 
> the core business of the GA?"

> IMHO, the GA is not about an experiment of democracy in cyberspace, but 
> about a way to provide public input to ICANN on Domain Name issues.

> To get some public input in a less than perfect fashion will be to achieve 
> some of the purpose. To achieve perfect cyberdemocracy but provide little or 
> no input would mean that we have failed miserably.

> In practical terms, the more time we dedicate to sociological and 
> pseudo-political argumentation, the more the decisions on Domain Names 
> issues will be taken without our input. Is this our goal? If yes, fine, 
> let's continue, we are on the right track!

> Regards
> Roberto


>>
>> > Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
>> > has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
>> > the detriment of the list.
>>
>> > For example
>>
>> > WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?
>>
>>I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
>>be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
>>right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
>>is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.
>>
>>Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
>>Userfriendly.com Domains
>>The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
>>DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>>
>>--
>>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>>

> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com



-- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <william@userfriendly.com>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

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