Re: [atlarge-discuss] Opposing the motion to permanently ban Jeff Williams

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

I'm sympathetic to Danny's compassionate values, and I have to admit that my
thoughts on this allegedly made-up / deceptive e-mail are tinged with
sadness for a person who has made this list and the ICANN world a large part
of his life.

That said, I refuse to spend my time on this major project if we're going to
maintain an environment of inane claims, fabrication, and insubstantial
froth about personalities which results in newcomers being overwhelmed by
garbage and wholly put off our organisation.

The continuance of that kind of regime will do untold damage to our mission
and our (as yet to be proved) credibility.

Therefore, if Jeff Williams made up an e-mail "from Mr Burr" and then
compromised our status and reputation in the eyes of another group, then I
would not hesitate to advocate permanent expulsion (and would apply the same
to anyone else) as part of a new order and greater seriousness and drive to
standards for our organisation.

I share with Joanna in recognising that thus far the panel has demonstrated
more of a commonsense no-nonsense approach. I support both that new tone,
and Danny's suggestion that we expedite list rules and moderation.

I'm prepared to act as a moderator in the early months of a new moderated
list, but only if that list operated under zero-tolerance principles and
excluded people who had already been shown to flood our unmoderated list
with indulgent or fabricated, slanderous or irrelevant posts.

I like the idea that the moderated list is initially made up of regular
subscribers, and that they and new subscribers agree to submit to
verification once they start using the list. Having said that, new
correspondents may well want to write *now* about an immediate issue, and I
think that (providing they join as members) they should be able to send mail
to the list *in advance* of verification, providing they undergo
verification within (say) 3 months.

Verification should, in this way, become a pre-condition for using the
moderated list, and this would then in turn help galvanise the verification
process. The verification should not be dependent on a single means of
identity-check, but should allow for choice of methods... methods (like
snail mail endorsement by a verifiable school/college/doctor etc) which
could reasonably be used and checked within a three-month window.

As an indication to Danny of a "new seriousness" for our group, I would
advise him that he would not (in my opinion) be eligible to post to the
moderated list, unless he finally made the choice to join the organisation.
We need a no-nonsense approach to a list which focuses on work and output,
and sets up barriers against subversives who try to de-rail our serious
intentions. I am not referring to Danny himself, who is a most valuable ally
whether inside or outside the operation. In my view we would greatly benefit
from some specific help and guidance from Danny on - say - a dozen key
'website zones' which exist specifically to develop papers and debate on 12
key areas of ICANN administration / concern, with a strong and focussed
critique of ICANN's actions.

Now *that* would be a product really worth generating, which would add
substance to out emerging website, and a focus of interest to new members.
Danny has been goading us on this for a long time, and he is right. We need
a new no-nonsense approach, administered with the same standards and
expectations we would require in our own private or professional lives.

In this context, the days when we would 'carry' people who flouted those
reasonable professional standards must surely have come to an end. Time is
too short, and the place for pastoral care or psychiatric provision is in
the local community in the real world, not in the impersonal universe of the
virtual world.

Unfortunately I think accommodation of inane disputes about existence or
non-existence of possibly fabricated organisations, inane fabrication of
e-mails from innocent citizens, and endless personal slurs and
counter-slurs, just floods our lists and damages the organisation. No
serious organisation should accommodate that kind of damage to its
operations and credibility.

I repeat what I've said previously : Jeff Williams has offered interesting
information resulting from his day to day obsession with monitoring ICANN.
If he can prove that Bill Burr actually sent the e-mail which Jeff published
in his name, then there is no case to answer.

But otherwise, an entirely innocent and unsuspecting citizen has been used
as supposed author of a fabricated e-mail, with invented words, invented
opinions, and a deception. What on earth must he, and other people, think of
our organisation? Such an action in my place of work would result in
dismissal. I don't think this is a matter of suspension because who knows -
why wouldn't it happen again and a whole flood of irrelevance just start all
over again?

It is up to Jeff to publish the original e-mail with all headers and
properties which Bill Burr sent him... an e-mail Bill Burr himself
disclaims, possibly as non-existent as the INEG membership of 120,000+
individuals...

What on earth has all this crap got to do with the true hard work involved
in building a credible User organisation?

We need the new no-nonsense approach.

Too many people would like to de-rail us.

Jeff can provide the original e-mail if it exists.

If it doesn't exist, then enough is enough.

yrs,

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>
To: DannyYounger@cs. com <DannyYounger@cs.com>
Cc: Atlarge-Discuss@Lists. Fitug. De <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 6:16 PM
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Opposing the motion to permanently ban Jeff
Williams


> Danny wrote:
> What does a family do when one of their members is chronically mentally
ill
> and needs to be on powerful psychotropic drugs for the rest of his life?
> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0307/msg00484.html
>
> If a member fires a loaded gun at you, what you don't do is take it away
for
> a few weeks, then give it back to them, especially to a person who is a
> repeat offender.  This isn't your family Danny, it's a community of
> strangers with a strong leadership that is obviously determined to apply
> professional standards across the board, with no exceptions. Sending a
clear
> message to the whole membership that this organization will not tolerate
or
> forgive certain kinds of behavior from now on is exactly the right thing
to
> do. This Panel has demonstrated that it has the time, ability and
> willingness to make tough decisions when faced with them, and with speed.
> That's a recipe for success, not failure, and those who fail to recognize
> and adjust to this new order of things, and who hold no respect for this
> Panel, may well face a similar fate in due course. The game is over where
> full benefits of membership could not be taken away regardless of how
> disruptive the behavior. Get over it.
>
>
> Joanna
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de