[governance] Appeals Team Final Report

Tue Jan 22 13:07:22 EST 2013

Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> wonderful job by the Appeals Team.
> and a great email from Carlos

Agreed.

Here's another few thoughts that I'd like to add:

Sometimes what another participant of the list writes will be really
irritating. Sometimes what someone else writes is irritating even if
it not that bad that the Coordinators have to step in (or at least they
think so). (It's a responsibility of the Coordinators to take action
when the rules are breached, but conversations can get unpleasant and
even irritating well before that point.)

In those moments it is helpful to assume that even if what that other
participant wrote is irritating and in some respects wrong, there will
likely be a valid concern and a worthwhile insight hidden somewhere in
those irritating and inaccurate words.

One of the most valuable things that can happen in a conversation is
what I call “whistleblowing”, which I'd define as someone pointing out
untruths in the ideology which underlies whatever is in the group the
dominant pattern of discourse. That of course tends to be uncomfortable
and irritating to most of the participants in the conversation.

We will all benefit more from our conversations if we focus more on
cooperatively digging out and clarifying those valid concerns and 
worthwhile insights, and less on arguing out about those irritating
words being somehow wrong and/or inappropriate.

Such constructive discourse takes time. Therefore it requires setting
priorities. I would suggest to all who have a habit of sometimes
criticizing others that there is wisdom in avoiding to trade mutual
criticism over *minor* points. This applies especially when the other
participant's personality is very incompatible with yours. (But “let's
avoid the unpleasant conversation” does not apply to what from your
perspective are the truly important issues. Those issues deserve and
need to be treated in a proper discourse, and if that discourse
requires criticizing opposing viewpoints, so be it, as long as the
criticizing is done in a civil manner.) 

Greetings,
Norbert

> On 22 Jan 2013, at 06:53, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> 
> > Excellent, very careful and detailed recommendations.
> > 
> > Especially taking into account that in this list we have a nice mix
> > of distinct cultures, and what sometimes seems innocuous for some
> > might mean a big deal for others in terms of how we relate with
> > each other.
> > 
> > I recall a lunch meeting between several Brazilians and people from
> > different countries from Asia at a World Bank venue many years ago.
> > Brazilians as usual are a bit irreverent and tell jokes, and these
> > jokes in English (for us Brazilians) sounded ok. But none of our
> > fellow Asians found them funny.
> > 
> > So we asked our friends from Asia to tell us some jokes -- the same
> > thing happened as we did not think they qualified as jokes at
> > all! :) But at the end we found some "universal" ones which passed
> > the test unanimously.
> > 
> > frt rgds
> > 
> > --c.a.
> > 
> > On 01/22/2013 01:09 AM, Ian Peter wrote:
> >> FINAL REPORT, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
> >> 
> >> With the comments period completed, the Appeals Team can now
> >> present its final report and recommendations as regards the appeal
> >> against the removal from the IGC list of Suresh Ramasubramanian.
> >> 
> >> OUR FINDINGS ON THE APPEAL
> >> 
> >> We confirm our finding is that Suresh’s removal from the IGC list
> >> was not in accordance with the IGC Charter, for reasons contained
> >> in our interim findings and repeated later in this report. We
> >> therefore request that Suresh be reinstated to the list
> >> immediately. (this has already taken place)
> >> 
> >> OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
> >> 
> >> We also make the following recommendations for consideration by
> >> all IGC members.
> >> 
> >> Recommendation 1. The IGC Charter includes the following
> >> recommendation,. “The coordinators may, at their discretion,
> >> appoint an advisory team of at least three individuals to assist
> >> them in making the determination of when someone has breached the
> >> posting rules defined in this charter. While all decisions remain
> >> the coordinators' responsibility, any such recommendation from an
> >> advisory team will be made public at the time of either suspension
> >> or removal from the list.”
> >> 
> >> 
> >> In the case before us which took place while there was only one
> >> active coordinator, we think this advisory team would have been
> >> particularly valuable.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Recommendation 2. We recommend that in future reasons be given for
> >> any removal or suspension, referencing the charter provisions
> >> which were breached and led to the suspension. This is currently
> >> not a requirement in the Charter, but we feel strongly that any
> >> suspension, removal, or warning, should state clearly why this is
> >> so, in accordance with the IGC charter provisions. These are
> >> listed below and are quite broad.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Recommendation 3. We recommend that in future all
> >> removal/suspensions also be communicated to the list with reasons,
> >> not only to the person concerned. Again this is not a current
> >> Charter requirement, but we believe that in the interests of good
> >> communication with the list this should always be followed.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Recommendation 4. We recommend that, should the co-coordinators
> >> choose to review the situation as regards the suspension of Suresh
> >> Ramasubramanian, the number of days already suspended from the
> >> list prior to being reinstated during this appeals process should
> >> be deducted from any 30 day suspension.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Recommendation 5. Finally, we recommend that all list
> >> participants, including those who have been warned in the past,
> >> focus their contributions on the issues being discussed, and not
> >> the personalities. If IGC ever degrades to a forum which does not
> >> have a wide range of cultural differences, political opinions,
> >> perspectives, interests,sensitivities, and differing interests in
> >> the broad field of internet governance, it would be a great pity.
> >> However, within this diverse group, all members have a right to
> >> discuss what they feel is pertinent, and all members have a right
> >> to disagree. But none of this should include statements which
> >> could be construed by a reasonable person as being outside of the
> >> IGC Charter’s definition of reasonable conduct, which includes (to
> >> quote from the charter)
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
> >> · refrain from personal attacks, insults or slander
> >> · refrain from offensive or discriminating language
> >> · refrain from threats , including threats of legal action, on
> >> list or off list · refrain from excessive and repetitive posting
> >> 
> >> Inappropriate postings to the IGC list include
> >> · Unsolicited bulk e-mail
> >> · Discussion of subjects unrelated to the IGC mission and
> >> objectives · Unprofessional or discourteous commentary, regardless
> >> of the general subject · Sequences of messages by one or more
> >> participants that cause an IGC list to become a hostile environment
> >> 
> >> 
> >> It is only appropriate that action should be taken, should co -
> >> coordinators in their best judgement (and where appropriate with
> >> consultation) feel that participants are acting outside of these
> >> guidelines. As members of this list, we feel that there have been
> >> a number of cases recently, involving not only those who have been
> >> warned but cases where people have not been warned, where these
> >> guidelines have been broken. It is in the interests of what we are
> >> trying to achieve as civil society that our discourse remains
> >> civil, polite, and courteous. We reject the notion that, because
> >> other lists do not closely moderate or demand reasonable
> >> behaviour, this list should not pursue the standards set in its
> >> charter.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Lastly, we wish to record our thanks to Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro
> >> for her patience and co-operation during this appeal period, and
> >> her dedication to keeping the Internet Governance Caucus
> >> functioning during a difficult time. We trust that our
> >> recommendations are useful in assisting future co-coordinators in
> >> dealing with such situations, and in clarifying the behaviour that
> >> can reasonably be expected from all participants on this mailing
> >> list.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Thanks also to those who submitted comments. This appeal is now
> >> closed. The Appeals Team will not be responding formally to any
> >> further comments on this particular matter.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The Appeals Team
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Shaila Mistry, Ginger Paque, Roland Perry , Ian Peter and Deidre
> >> Williams
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> BACKGROUND INFORMATION
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Reasons for our finding.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> The Charter outlines a specific process that must take place
> >> before removal on any person from the list, as follows
> >> 
> >> Suspension of posting rights
> >> 
> >> Failure to abide by posting rules may result in suspension or
> >> removal from the IGC list according to the following process:
> >> 
> >> · The coordinators will first warn a subscriber privately of the
> >> problem · If the problem persists the coordinators will notify the
> >> subscriber publicly on the list of impending suspension from the
> >> list. Suspension will include only posting rights. · If the
> >> problem persists the subscriber's posting rights will be suspended
> >> for one (1) month. · Once the subscriber's posting rights are
> >> restored, any further problem will result in another public
> >> warning. · If the problem continues to persist after suspension
> >> and a second public warning, the coordinators will be permitted to
> >> either suspend the posting rights for three (3) months or to
> >> remove the subscriber from the list. · Any decision for suspension
> >> can be appealed. Any decision to remove someone from the list will
> >> call for an automatic appeal by the appeals team.
> >> 
> >> In this case, the previous private and public warnings given to
> >> Suresh needed to be followed by a one month suspension, not
> >> removal from the list. It has been confirmed in correspondence
> >> with both the Coordinator and with the person removed from the
> >> list that the word used in the private letter advising removal was
> >> “removal”, and this was confirmed by the co ordinator as being the
> >> intention. It was this action outside of the process outlined in
> >> the IGC Charter that led to our decision.
> >> 
> > 
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > 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