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

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Sadness,

I hate censorship!  But there are violations of free speech that we must 
recognize.  Some dude said "I don't know what pornography is but I can 
recognize it when I see it" (I guess he was some US Supreme Court guy).
Slander is to the ear and Libel is to the eyeball and neither should be 
pre-prevented.  However both are actionable in the past tense. This is 
common sense.
Good luck to the panel in weighing this heavy burden.  Remember history can 
only judge you in retrospect. The GA's censoship will be weighed on the side 
of wrong.
e

> 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



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