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

Sat Jun 22 14:26:44 UTC 2013

Kieren,

All of these concerns questions were addressed in the original notice which
I have re-appended here. However, to recap:

<< Told they insulted someone two months earlier>> Eric was informed at the
time and the same request was made. Eric never acknowledged, responded or
complied. Instead Eric unsubscribed from the list. List subscription is a
condition of unaffiliated membership. Since he was (voluntarily) no longer a
member of NARALO it became a moot issue and the Chair did not pursue it
further. The incident resulted in VERY specific complaints and has been
followed by more complaints in a "pattern of abuse." Eric re-subscribed to
the list at some point unbeknownst to the Chair. Had I known in advance, I
would have insisted he comply with the original request.

<< Suspended from posting to an open list>> It is only open in so far as the
rules are adhered to.

<<Told that their credentials are not correct>> This is a simple fact. Eric
was given multiple notices and instructions on how to fulfill the
requirements and for unknown reasons did not comply. 

<< Informed that they are not eligible to stand for chair>> My notices have
stated otherwise

<< Apologize for a message that so far no one has been able to ascertain who
it is and what he should be apologizing for/ Who exactly did Eric
Brunner-Williams insult and by saying what? No one on this list has seen any
evidence of it.>> Wrong. I plainly stated in my original notice: "I cannot
re-post the offending remark but will explain the situation privately upon
request." - Which I have done now on multiple occasions, since you never
asked I never provided it.

<< When exactly did the NARALO chair and secretary get to decide they could
introduce arbitrary conditions for membership of the organization?>> All
rules have been referenced in the original notice and subsequently. 

<< 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?>> A complete list of incidents and
complaints will be made available for our next call. As for the Ombudsman,
he is there for the concerned parties at any time. The actions here are
completely within the rules of the NARALO rules and did not require
consultation with the Ombudsman.

<<* 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>> Yes,
and the ALAC chair made this all very clear.

<< 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
represent?/>> We have responded to every email.

-Garth

-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren
McCarthy
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2013 10:30 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
represent?

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

Kieren

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> |
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/2010841>|
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
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
------
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Garth Bruen" <gbruen at knujon.com>
Subject: Suspension of Posting Privileges for Eric Brunner Williams
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:59:32 -0400
Size: 2655
Url: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/attachments/20130622/792b6257/attachment.mht 