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

[R.Gaetano@iaea.org]

Kristy,

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

You are entitled to your opinions, but I would appreciate if you got the
facts straight. See below.



> 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.


Both statements wrong.
Last summer/fall I did not enter the matter of the debate, I only noticed
that if the two List Monitors have diverging opinion a third person should
arbitrate.
Also, the suspension was proposed by Alexander together with the suspension
of Russ Smith. Neither has been processed by the Secretariat, apparently on
its way to Montevideo - after the meeting the matter was forgotten, but for
both, not only for Kent.


> 
> -----------
> -----------
> 
> 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.


We do have difference of opinions.
I do believe that whether or not Kent is qualified for the job does not
entitle you or anybody to be offensive.
You seem to believe the contrary.



> 
> --------
> --------
> 
> 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.


This whole thing has absolutely nothing to do with the warning.
The warning was given for offensive posting, and I am absolutely sure that
the disagreement with ICANN's choice, the considerations about ethics and
what else can be expressed in civil terms.
Even if I do agree with some of your thoughts, I do strongly disagree with
the way you express them.


> 
> -------
> -------
> 
> 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.


English is not my first language, but the quote below from your post seems a
direct assault on Kent, not ICANN:

>> Any email sent from ICANN.org should be scrutinized, especially if it is 
>> noted to be from Karl or Andy.  Kent Crispin has a habit of falsifying 
>> posts and is comfortable doing this publicly.  I recommend we pay special

>> attention to Kent's behavior - we may watch him go to court for
falsifying 
>> documents, etc. 

Pointing out what he has done (once) in the past is not against the rules,
alleging criminal charges in the future is. 


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

Exactly.
My expectation is that we keep the posting in a civilized form, and I am
sorry if you disagree.

Regards
Roberto