[governance] Formal public warning to Suresh

Mon Apr 8 03:14:58 EDT 2013

+1

Tapani

On Apr 08 08:31, 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

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