RE: [ga-abuse] Re: [Admin] Warning

[k@widgital.com (Kristy McKee)]

We are having disagreements:
----------------------------

The one complaint = response was upsetting to me when I first signed on 
as  List Monitor, sharing the responsibility to make decisions was an 
improvement; but not completely.  The way Alexander has been issuing 
warnings according to William Walsh's desires creates the sensation that 
William should be doing the job just to cut out the middle man.  If we are 
not going to be subjective, why not?

It really is amazing that one complaint can render a participant suspended 
whereas a few or even many complaints don't even warrant a warning when the 
complaint is against Kent.

By the way, you supported not suspending Kent, what gives him the right to 
be offensive and not receive repercussions from you, Thomas, Alexander, and 
the secretariat?  You realize the secretariat flat out refused to suspend 
Kent's posting rights last summer/fall whereas they were absolutely 
available for any others suspension.

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

We have a difference of opinion, folks.  I find nothing humorous about and 
do not support falsifying posts in any situation.  I do not appreciate the 
act of isolating individuals with mean-spirited comments which was Kent's 
common practice on this list, the domain-policy list, etc.

Kent probably would have lost his job had he been an employee of ours when 
he sent the false post because at that moment he let it be known he is 
mean-spirited and not trustworthy.  We ca not support people who are 
unethical as our clients don't want them around.  It confuses me that ICANN 
would intentionally choose an person like Kent for this job.

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

The best reason of all not to hire someone to be a part or especially lead 
a technology team is their level of deployable ethics.  Kent has proven 
himself publicly to be unethical on several occasions.

(Much of ICANN is also unethical, that is one reason they are a good 
fit.  I thought you pointed this out in your message, Roberto.)

I have experience with these situations and know the geek so to speak.  My 
opinion is appreciated by those who are interested in quality of service 
and looking to fill that position with someone qualified whose response to 
queries will not be accusatory, defensive, or nonsense.

I would think, Roberto, that with your experience you would agree with me.

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

Certainly, over time nearly everyone's ability to communicate 
improves.  Some become less volatile and some more.

I really think Thomas, Alexander, and William blew my initial comment out 
of proportion.  If even one other complaint had been received about it, it 
would be so much easier for me to feel like I have not been singled out, 
especially since the message was a direct assault against ICANN and not 
Kent... pointing out things folks have done in the past (that are proven 
beyond reasonable doubt in online publicly available archives) is not 
against the rules.

As it stands there are different levels of expectations for groups of 
participants of the GA.

Best Regards,

~k