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

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

eric is our priest and pastor, sometimes otherworldly and sometimes hard to
apply, but he has a conscience and against the chatter and uproar of our
daily dealings, he is a softly-flowing stream or the sibillance of the
breeze among the willow leaves

r

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>
Cc: <jo-uk@rcn.com>; <DannyYounger@cs.com>; <atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de>
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Opposing the motion to permanently ban Jeff
Williams


> 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