[governance] Formal public warning to Suresh

Walid AL-SAQAF admin at alkasir.com
Mon Apr 8 03:34:05 EDT 2013 

Also +1 supporting Milton's view on how to approach this problem.

Sincerely,

Walid

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

Walid Al-Saqaf
Founder & Administrator
alkasir for mapping and circumventing cyber censorship
https://alkasir.com <walid.al-saqaf at oru.se>

PGP: https://alkasir.com/doc/admin_alkasir_pub_key.txt


On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 3:29 PM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:

> +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
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130408/bfc0651b/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

More information about the Governance mailing list