[NA-Discuss] NARALO code of conduct and chair's authority to suspend posting rights

[Beau Brendler]

To those who post to the NA-RALO list:

The NARALO code of conduct can be found here:

https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/2264679/NA-2007-1-2+NARALO+Code+of+Conduct+-+EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1286814559000

This document is posted on the Confluence NARALO site under "organizing documents" (see: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/RALO+Organising+Documents). 

The NARALO over the last several months has been migrating from one content system to another, as has been repeatedly discussed in NARALO and ALAC meetings, as well as in person in Cartagena and San Francisco. Some outdated materials are still left on the old site.

Page one, paragraph one of the document says:
------------------------------------------
Inappropriate postings include:
• Unsolicited bulk e-mail,
• Discussion of subjects unrelated to ICANN policy, meetings, activities, or
technical concerns,
• Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject,
• Postings being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others,
• Postings that are libellous, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents
another person,
• Postings that violate an obligation of confidentiality,
• Postings that violate the privacy of others,
• Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not related to
ICANN matters.
===========================================
The chair's authority is described thus:

The NARALO Chair is empowered to suspend or restrict a person's posting rights
when the content that person has posted is inappropriate and represents a pattern
of abuse. The Chair defines and determines what is inappropriate content on a
case-by-case basis. Our definitions are not limited to this list.

In addition, page 2 states:

For example, if the group is unable to reach consensus, this is an
acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that group fails to achieve
consensus because it is being continuously disrupted, then the disruption
constitutes an abuse of the consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are
fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a participant
expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve consensus. In other words,
individual bad faith should not trump community goodwill.
-----------------------------

Is that transparent and clear enough?