[governance] a formal appeal request to the appeal team to reverse the recent ban on a Member

[Carlos A. Afonso]

My general impression is that if we are not fair and reasonable these 
restrictions may end up banning politics from the IGC discussions... let 
us then talk soccer, chat about Messi's polka-dot suit and things like 
that...

--c.a.

On 01/08/2013 11:08 AM, McTim wrote:
> Sala,
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro
> <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Dear All,
>>
>> As a matter of background, there were complaints received over the blase
>> attacks against persons and I had privately warned the "banned" subscriber
>> more than a couple of times.
>>
>> The banned "subscriber" was on last warning.
>
> Can you point to the anything that is even suggestive of an "attack"
> in the following:
>
> ------begin quote-----
>
> On 2013/01/06 06:52 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> So do you get all your news from just news.google.com and other google
> search results, instead of Facebook shares, Riaz gleefully posting
> every article he sees about google being investigated for, say,
> giggling in church?
>
> And did Riaz find this news item anywhere other than google search?
>
> And does this reality distortion field google is supposed to have
> actually hide any search results from you that are negative to it?
> Like search for "google FTC" and you get the EU action, statements
> from Microsoft slamming the decision etc.
>
> And the last link on page 1 of the search results showing just where
> google got spanked by the FTC.
> http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111650/why-does-everyone-think-google-beat-the-ftc#
> is worth a read as a kind f counterpoint to all the commentary about
> how google got a get out of jail card because of intensive lobbying.
>
> Can we please
>
> 1. Have a reality check here
> 2. Go back to discussing Internet governance
>
> ----end quote--------
>
> Suresh is correct here, your objectivity is in question.  Terms like
> "US exceptionalism" "status-quoist" and "right-wing" are all freely
> used, despite it being made clear that they were insulting (as being
> wildly inaccurate and not applying to anyone on the list).
>
> Can you point to any specific words in the above mail that constitute
> an ad hominem attack?
>
> In any case, I request an appeal and ask that at least 3 other IGC
> members support an appeal of this decision.
>
>

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