Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of Dave Crocker
I think that we have two valuable lessons to learn from the suspension.
There is a small turning point where the generally pleasant majority, got vocal
against antagonism which was clearly designed to prevent achievement and
participation. No one needs to name names because the past is just that, the
past. But I can garauntee you that if it starts to rear its' ugly head again us
newbie dotcommoners will not tolerate it.
You will note that I like to work on Outreach, multilingualism and Education. My
bottom line on the conduct was that it hurt Outreach intentionally. And I think
that we should note that the gravaman of this latest banning was over sustained
brutal conduct and not really a freedom of speech thing at all. It also should be
noted it happened to a non-elected member of the voting watchdog group. I
believe the action is the first in a long line of the beginning of
internetstakeholders forcing the controllers to act in reaction to their
opinions. This GA is turning the corner.
Secondly, I believe it illustrates that we need a better mechanism for dealing
with the problem. I really believe an easy informal selection/election of a
group of three should handle the banning. If the allegations are really dealing
with protected speech we need to be very careful, otherwise banning will always
be viewed as a top down censoring of opposing opinions. I ask that Dave, Harald
and Jeff get together on this a prepare process to move this in this new
direction, between them the document should either satisfy all or none and either
Andy Gardner wrote:
> >Doesn't this discussion violate the same rule as Dave's? Shouldn't we
> >discuss substantive issues instead of personalities?
> That was nothing to do with personalities.
> It was about plants paid by persons unknown, here to steer discussions the
> way their masters want, and to throw spanners into cogs wherever possible.
> They are masters of this game. Wouldn't you be interested to know exactiy
> WHO is paying them to do it?
> I sure would.
> >Aren't we threatening
> >the stability and function of this assembly by getting off on such tangents?
> You're pointing the finger in the wrong direction, Eric.
> Have they pulled the wool over your eyes?
> Andrew P. Gardner
> barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
> We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
> Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html