[governance] Formal public warning to Suresh

Milton L Mueller mueller at syr.edu
Sun Apr 7 19:20:26 EDT 2013 

Norbert:
As an IGC member I disagree with this decision to issue a formal public warning to Suresh. It seems you are singling out one person when a group of people was engaged in an argument, and all of them contributed messages that were similar in tenor to his. A better way to approach this problem would be to intervene in the argument and inform the participants that we don't think it is a productive exchange and we don't think the spirit of the exchanges was conducive to constructive discussion. 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-
> request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Norbert Bollow
> Sent: Sunday, April 07, 2013 5:30 PM
> To: Suresh Ramasubramanian
> Cc: IGC
> Subject: [governance] Formal public warning to Suresh
> 
> [This notification is from both coordinators of the IGC, jointly, in
> execution of their responsibility as described in the IGC Charter.]
> 
> Hello Suresh
> 
> Unfortunately the problem persists that you are posting messages which,
> in the words of the IGC Charter, “cause an IGC list to become a hostile
> environment”.
> 
> Among these unacceptable messages are those which contain personal
> attacks, of which a recent example is included below. Personal attacks
> have not only an unpleasant or even hurtful effect on the target of the
> attack, but they also deny everyone else the opportunity of
> participating in a discussion environment that is conductive to
> constructive discussion and reflection.
> 
> More generally, all kinds of postings are unacceptable which are
> designed to render it impossible for some civil society viewpoint (on
> any Internet governance topic, as per WGIG's definition) to be discussed
> in a non-hostile environment.
> 
> In fact you have, despite all admonitions to the contrary, continued to
> make a series of consistent attacks against some IGC members, including
> directly personal attacks as well as claims that their viewpoints are
> somehow totally inappropriate.
> 
> As foreseen by the IGC Charter, you are hereby notified that in case you
> continue the practice of posting such unacceptable messages, your
> posting rights will be suspended for one month.
> 
> Regards,
> Norbert and Sala
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
> From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <suresh at hserus.net>
> Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2013 17:30:01 +0530
> To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>,
> parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
> Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: Final composition of the CSTD Working
> Group on Enhanced Cooperation
> 
> 
> As I asked guru, why is it any of your business who a focal point for
> another constituency chooses?
> 
> And if your entire participation in this process is to be limited to
> such divisive politics, I am not quite sure if you deserve to be one of
> the cs representatives in this process, and would urge the cs focal
> point to strongly reconsider, at the risk of introducing a divisive
> agenda into the process, hampering it rather than contributing
> positively to it.
> 
> --srs (iPad)
> 
> On 30-Mar-2013, at 17:11, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Friday 29 March 2013 10:00 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
> >> Wow, Gotcha...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 1:18 AM, parminder
> >> <parminder at itforchange.net> w=
> rote:
> >>> On Friday 29 March 2013 08:03 PM, McTim wrote:
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> you are incorrect.  The folk who are involved in Internet2, amongst
> >>>> other REN projects are EXACTLY those people that the FP would
> >>>> include.
> >>>
> >>> So you are saying that members of Internet2 fit the definition of
> >>> technical (and academic) community that the focal point gave us
> >>> which is "community of organizations and individuals who are
> >>> involved in the day-to-day operational management of the Internet
> >>> and who work within this community" ? You think that Internet2 is
> >>> involved in 'day to say operational management of the Internet'?
> >>>
> >> I think probably yes <http://www.internet2.edu/membership/index.cfm>
> >
> > What I hear is that Adam, Mctim, and perhaps one another are saying
> > that Internet2 project members meet the definition of 'those involved
> > in day to day operational management of the Internet' and thus would
> > be eligible as representatives of 'tech and academic community' on the
> > WG on enhanced cooperation and such bodies, as per what we have heard
> > from the concerned focal point.
> >
> > I will be happy if ISOC as the focal point can confirm this. Let them
> > tell us whom all did they distribute the call for nominations to, and
> > we will indirectly get out answer. BTW, the initial mandate of the
> > focal points was simply to 'assist the CSTD Chair in reaching out to
> > the interested parties in their respective regional or stakeholder
> > groups and to facilitate consultations '.
> >
> > Let ISOC give a report on whom all did they reach out to and held
> > consultations with. Such a report is a basic requirement to be made
> > public. The WG on IGF Improvements clearly instructs documentation and
> > publication of such processes by those involved in stakeholder rep
> > selection, and there is no reason it should not be done in this case.
> > This is a basic requirement of transparency, isnt it.
> >
> > Meanwhile, I do not see how Internet2 members can be considered as
> > being 'involved' in day to day operational management of the
> > Internet.... There are various kinds of techies there working on
> > technology innovation, there are universities involved, there are even
> > two music schools involved there....
> >
> > But if indeed, those who work on Internet related innovations in the
> > field are to be included, why was Michael's nomination rejected - not
> > on intrinsic merit, but on non eligibility.... Michael works with
> > various field based Internet innovations, including for instance
> > projects involving setting specific technical configurations for
> > facilitating tele medicine for aboriginal communities.... Community
> > informatics is lot about such kind of stuff. And so, Michael should
> > have even qualified for the tech part of tech-academic community, what
> > to say about the 'academic' part....
> >
> >
> > I think ISOC is clear when they say that they only include those
> > working with organisations involved in day to day operation of the
> > Internet  - and these are ICANN, ISOC perhaps for IETF/ IAB etc, RIR,
> > root servers and perhaps country cctlds....
> >
> > And if one is working with any of these organisations, it is not even
> > necessary to be either a techie or an academic. You just must be
> > working with these above organisations, Perhaps you know that
> > Constance, who is now on the WG, is neither a techie nor an academic,
> > she is policy and law professional. She is there just because she is
> > with ISOC. And so ISOC is rather consistent with a narrow
> > interpretation of their definition.
> >
> > The creteria used by concerned Focal Point ISOC is rather clear - even
> > if I strongly disagree with it. And Internet2 members would in no case
> > make to their list. Evidence of it would be in the fact that
> > - although they are on OECD Technical Community Advisory Committee  -
> > I am relatively sure that the Focal Point did not reach out to the
> > Internet2 group, and such others, when it was asked to do stakeholder
> > outreach. If I am wrong on this, I am happy to be corrected and ISOC
> > may publish the process documentations telling us whom all did they
> > out reach to.
> >
> > parminder
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Adam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> And that therefore Internet2 members could have been considered as
> >>> nominees from the technical and academic community by the focal
> >>> point for the WG on EC?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Strange that they qualify for OECD body as technical community but
> >>>>> not for the UN system.....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Evidently, the definition of even the technical community part of
> >>>>> the 'technical and academic community' employed by the Focal point
> >>>>> is erronoeus, what to say about the 'academic community' part
> >>>>> which seem to have simply been banished.
> >>>> but they haven't been, you are simply mistaken.
> >>>
> >>> How am I mistaken? Who is the academic community member in the final
> >>> list? Like someone not closely associated with ISOC and not running
> >>> a country tld whereby one qualifies through the above definition of
> >>> being engaged in 'day to day operational management of the
> >>> Internet'?
> >>>
> >>> parminder

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

More information about the Governance mailing list