[NA-Discuss] Suspension of Posting Privileges for Eric Brunner Williams

Thompson, Darlene DThompson1 at GOV.NU.CA
Sat Jun 22 02:44:38 UTC 2013

I'll let the chair respond.  I've pointed to the appropriate regulations enough times and answered the same questions enough times.  I think Olivier has put it very well.


Darlene A. Thompson
CAP Administrator
N-CAP/Department of Education
P.O. Box 1000, Station 910
Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
Phone:  (867) 975-5631
Fax:  (867) 975-5610
dthompson at gov.nu.ca
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Kieren McCarthy [kieren at dot-nxt.com]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:29 PM
To: NA-Discuss
Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Suspension of Posting Privileges for Eric Brunner     Williams

So, to recap:

During elections, someone who says they wish to stand for chair is:

* Told they insulted someone two months earlier
* Suspended from posting to an open list
* Told that their credentials are not correct
* Informed that they are not eligible to stand for chair

In order to be allowed to continue, this person is told to:

* Apologize for a message that so far no one has been able to ascertain who
it is and what he should be apologizing for
* To resubmit his ALS application - which presumably would push him past
the election time

When this series of events is questioned by other members of the community,
we learn the following:

* All the decisions made were made by the Chair and Secretary with some
level of consultation with the ALAC chair
* That it was a "really hard" decision and that those three people are
committed to open discussion, despite the clear evidence otherwise

When no less than four community members continue to question the process,
the response is that these three people stand by their decision. No other
information is provided.

So, some questions:

* Who exactly did Eric Brunner-Williams insult and by saying what? No one
on this list has seen any evidence of it.

* When exactly did the NARALO chair and secretary get to decide they could
introduce arbitrary conditions for membership of the organization?

* Where are these discussions documented and why did the parties in
question not use the Ombudsman process rather than decide between
themselves what the appropriate action was?

* Why do "elected" NARALO representatives feel that they do not have to
respond to the clear concerns expressed by the community they are there to

This is really poor even for the low standards set by NARALO.


Kieren McCarthy
CEO | .Nxt, Inc.
+1 415 937 1451
kieren at dot-nxt.com | http://dot-nxt.com

Find us on: Twitter <http://twitter.com/dotnxtcon> |
Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/dotnxt>

On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> Dear all,
> as Chair of the ALAC, I am always concerned about a breaking of the
> inclusive atmosphere in any part of our community.
> One such cause is the writing of ad-hominem accusations on the list.
> This ends up being archived, picked up by search engines and ultimately
> makes everybody look bad.
> I too am sad that it had to come to this - but we are all grown up
> people here and we do not need to pick at each other personally. I
> understand sometimes that debates and discussions can get out of hand.
> But offending other people is not the way that we'll manage to better
> channel the points of view of Internet users into the ICANN process -
> and it is not the way we'll encourage more people to get involved and to
> contribute, because a hostile atmosphere will scare them away.
> For this reason, Garth had my full support for his actions that he had
> to take as NARALO Chair.
> If Eric feels he has been unfairly treated, the Ombudsman is indeed a
> possible avenue for appeal.
> Best regards,
> Olivier Crépin-Leblond
> ALAC Chair
> On 21/06/2013 17:07, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
> > Our Chair can add conditions to re-instatement before a person is
> allowed back on the list.  This particular case was discussed with the ALAC
> Chair as well as the NARALO leadership and this course was accepted.  The
> Code of Conduct is a document that was agreed to by the NARALO.  This
> action was also not taken upon just one instance of a violation of the Code
> of Conduct.  This was the third time showing a pattern of abuse.  Garth
> really did not want to take this action because of the perception of a
> "rival to his position" being silenced.  However, as Chair, he did have to
> take action because this was about abuse of our members.
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org

More information about the NA-Discuss mailing list