[governance] Formal public warning to Suresh

William Drake william.drake at uzh.ch
Mon Apr 8 03:29:02 EDT 2013 

+another

Bill

On Apr 8, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Tapani Tarvainen <tapani.tarvainen at effi.org> wrote:

> +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
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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


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