[governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

[McTim]

Hi Parminder,

A rich vein to mine, see inline below:

On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 1:10 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
>
> If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a warning
> and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one of political
> bias by co-cos

The political bias comes not in suspending one person, but in NOT
suspending others who are guilty of far worse ad hominemism.


, then perhaps it is worth having a discussion on the subject
> of political biases on this list.
>
> It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously, such
> deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I understand that it
> is mostly Norbert who is being targeting.

no, it's both co-cos who make the decisions and seem to let one side
heap abuse on members, but only punish the victims of such abuse.

 Being an avid supporter of
> democratic and accountability seeking processes I do not really have any
> major issues with these 'accusations'. If some people do feel this way well
> let them say it (although preferably substantiate it better).

Are not the quotes supplied substantiation enough? You accused people
of dishonesty AND of supplying "petulant contemptuous" responses.

 Norbert has
> responded to each  of these accusatory points in good details also pointing
> to the avenues where further recourse lies.


No, in fact he hasn't.  He has only stated he will not comment on the
list about them.

 I also encourage the disaffected
> parties to pursue these avenues.
>
<conspiracy theory snipped>

> Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of Norbert - our
> duly elected co-coordinator -  one is reminded how very recently some
> questions were raised on this list about very important constitutive
> processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) - with regard to definitions and
> selection processes of representatives of the so-called technical and
> academic community. In that case, the integrity of the concerned 'high
> officers' (as in holders of a public duty, somewhat like our co-cos) was
> never questioned by anyone.

There never was any reason to call their integrity into question, although you
seem to be doing that via the back door now!


 Simply some definition clarifications were
> sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And what happened?


You didn't accept reality, that's what happened.  The fact is that a
person from the T&A who works in an academic environment was selected.
 You chose not to accept that that person could be called "Academic".


 The
> concerned person gives one indirect response, which includes a gross
> personal accusation against Michael, which was confirmed later to be false,
> and refuses to engage from there on, even to withdraw the false accusation
> (of what has now come to be known as 'double dipping').

I fail to see how one can call the perception of double dipping a
"gross personal accusation".


 Meanwhile, and see
> how the 'structure of power' operates on this list, numerous contributions
> came down harshly on those who had raised the process questions, attributing
> all kinds of personal motives to those who raised the questions (please note
> at which point a discussion is rendered ad hominen).

What personal motives are you talking about?  I saw none of that in
the discussion.

 Inter alia, I was
> accused repeatedly of having a 'gotcha mentality'.

Is that NOT your style of argumentation that we have seen on the list for years?


 Now, I can assure you
> friends, that when a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is launched,
> using an elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often employing
> sophisticated English/ slang by native speakers,


words like "ilk" and 'so-called" you mean?


 it is mostly enough to
> 'shut people up'. I still want to know from the 'right thinking' but perhaps
> silent people on this list why should such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted
> and condoned, which is where the shift to ad hominem first takes place,


pot. kettle. black.  For the non-native English speakers who may still
be following this
exchange, I am trying to point out the loaded language or "fighting
words' often employed by those on the list who like to portray
themselves as victims.


> whereby political arguments are ascribed to personal characteristics of the
> dissenting people.
>
> To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a
> discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point for
> CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be said or
> discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be careful' etc begun
> flowing on the list. (Compare this with the unguarded allegations against
> Norbert.)

How was Milton's accusation "unguarded"?

<more conspiracy theory snipped>

> The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being made so
> easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a power structure.


Or is is that we see that only one side is being prosecuted?


> Were it that a person from the 'other side of the political spectrum' had
> done but a fraction of what the 'offending member' did in the present
> instance, he would have been chased off the list months back.

IMHO, "the other side of the political spectrum" has consistently been
far more abusive than the  'offending member'.


 For the last
> many months almost anything I post on the list is responded to almost
> immediately by the concerned member in a most personalised ad hominem manner
> - of the kind ' you and/ or your organisations is like this or that'.....
> For months now I never reply to his emails (please check archives).


I just spent ~30 seconds looking at previous mails and found that you
do reply to him directly multiple times.  Look at March 22nd for
several examples (that is the first and only thread I looked at).



 However,
> such a behaviour does considerably constrain my ability to do a meaningful
> discussion on this list. Still, neither did I seek his removal from the list
> or even suspension, nor I do so now. He can stay, and we would manage rather
> well despite him.

<insult ignored>

>
> Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather serious
> allegations

Are we not supposed to stand up against perceived injustice?

, and he responds to all of them without taking offence. On the
> other hand, there are others from which even to ask clarificatory questions
> leads to volleys of personalised accusations against those who dare
> question, and other, often sophisticated, stonewalling tactics


again, pot. kettle. black.

For the record, and to respond to Avri and Suresh's comments, I have
not had any back channel communications with the cocos on this topic,
nor am I employed by any agency of the T&A Community.

2 days ago, I did accept a role on the AfriNIC NomCom, which is a
volunteer position.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

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