[governance] Formal public warning to Suresh

Mon Apr 8 02:52:45 EDT 2013

+1

Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

>I agree with Milton.
>
>I respect people's right to argue and to disagree with one another. But
>the tone in multiple messages on this list, not just from Suresh, has,
>certainly for me, made this list a space that I don't feel comfortable
>in. It also feels as if the same rules are not being applied to
>everyone
>in the same way.
>
>A space like the IGC is bound to contain many different views. Some
>people will be very convinced of their views. Others might be more
>inclined to ask questions, to learn, and thereby broaden their
>analysis,
>and hopefully deepen their understanding of issues under discussion.
>
>It feels to me as if the list had become a space where only those that
>are supremely confident and convinced of their own rightness express
>themselves freely. It also feels to me as if a few individuals, those
>with fixed positions and views, are staging a kind of political theatre
>intended to capture and convince those around them.
>
>I respect people with convictions - I have my own too :) -  and
>recognise their right to have those convictions and, in many cases, the
>hard work that has gone into the development of those convictions.  But
>when these convictions lead to people questioning others' integrity and
>intentions on an e-list of this nature it does produce a hostile
>environment.
>
>As far as I am aware the coordinators have also written to people
>offlist so possibly the message to Suresh was not the first, or the
>only, attempt to try and contain people's tone. But I think Milton's
>process suggestion is a better option for handling the situation.
>
>Another option would be for the coordinators to propose that list
>discussions that have developed into a repetitive engagement between a
>relatively small number of people continue offlist. If there is
>agreement they can always share the outcome with the rest of the list -
>even if no consensus was reached.
>
>Anriette
>
>
>On 08/04/2013 01:20, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>> 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
>
>-- 
>------------------------------------------------------
>anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
>executive director, association for progressive communications
>www.apc.org
>po box 29755, melville 2109
>south africa
>tel/fax +27 11 726 1692

Avri Doria
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/d7466ee3/attachment.htm>
-------------- 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