Dear all, For those who are attending in person, the CCWG meeting will take place in Liffey Hall on the 1st floor on the convention center. I sent information about the shuttles to/from the hotel in a prior email <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/0 06773.html> . For those attending remotely, please join us via the virtual meeting room at: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyhall2/ As a reminder, all ICANN meetings (including the chat rooms and mailing lists) follow ICANN¹s Expected Standards of Behavior. For reference these are located here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en. In the words of the ICANN Ombudsman from a note he sent to this list on 22 June: "May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks.² Looking forward to seeing you in 8 hours, Grace
It's not a policy on polite discourse if it is not enforced, especially when someone can be directly, publicly insulted without any fear of the Ombusdmans ability to enforce that policy. It is clear that after being publicly referred to impolitely and unfairly objectified as a "troll", an "it", "a silicone based lifeform", labeled as "hostile", and told to "give it a rest" simply for trying to participate and share new ideas, there is no actual ability for the Ombudsman to enforce the policy being referred to. The very fact that the Ombusdman already sent a note previously asking members of this list to follow the policy on polite discourse, prior to my being assigned as a participant to CCWG-Accountability, shows me that there has long needed to be some sort of special review of the comments made by members of this mailing list to see if there is a atmosphere of disrespect that for some reason has evolved over a lengthy period of time. After such a review of the distractions, the real work of completing the ICANN transition process will be more successful in my opinion. Can the Ombudsman comment on this proposal and/or perform such a review? Ron
Dear mr. Baloney, I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”). During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds. A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header. Best, Roelof Meijer From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com<mailto:ron.baione@yahoo.com>> Date: vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 01:45 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location It's not a policy on polite discourse if it is not enforced, especially when someone can be directly, publicly insulted without any fear of the Ombusdmans ability to enforce that policy. It is clear that after being publicly referred to impolitely and unfairly objectified as a "troll", an "it", "a silicone based lifeform", labeled as "hostile", and told to "give it a rest" simply for trying to participate and share new ideas, there is no actual ability for the Ombudsman to enforce the policy being referred to. The very fact that the Ombusdman already sent a note previously asking members of this list to follow the policy on polite discourse, prior to my being assigned as a participant to CCWG-Accountability, shows me that there has long needed to be some sort of special review of the comments made by members of this mailing list to see if there is a atmosphere of disrespect that for some reason has evolved over a lengthy period of time. After such a review of the distractions, the real work of completing the ICANN transition process will be more successful in my opinion. Can the Ombudsman comment on this proposal and/or perform such a review? Ron ________________________________ From: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org<mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org>>; To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location Sent: Thu, Oct 15, 2015 10:58:48 PM Dear all, For those who are attending in person, the CCWG meeting will take place in Liffey Hall on the 1st floor on the convention center. I sent information about the shuttles to/from the hotel in a prior email<http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00...>. For those attending remotely, please join us via the virtual meeting room at: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyhall2/ As a reminder, all ICANN meetings (including the chat rooms and mailing lists) follow ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior. For reference these are located here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en. In the words of the ICANN Ombudsman from a note he sent to this list on 22 June: "May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks.” Looking forward to seeing you in 8 hours, Grace
Dear Co-Chairs, In terms of Roelof Meijer's request for meaningful subject lines: It appears from the below post of the troll posting from the email account ron.baione@yahoo.com that we we must stop all CCWG related work, IMMEDIATELY, to allow the Ombudsman to determine whether the troll is indeed a silicon based life form. Even though he alleges to have been labelled a "silicone based life form", which he was not. If the troll were to be found a silicon based life form he would have a point as the ICANN rules of behavior state Those who take part in ICANN multi-stakeholder process, including Board, staff and all those involved in Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee councils, undertake to: [...] Treat all members of the ICANN community EQUALLY, irrespective of nationality, gender, racial or ethnic origin, religion or beliefs, disability, age, or sexual orientation; members of the ICANN community SHOULD treat each other with civility both face to face and online. [...] If the investigation turned out that the below troll indeed is a silicon based life form I am sure Mr Roberts will be most willing to be called to the Ombudsman's Office for a spanking. As will I, even though anyone familiar with my background knows I am not the Captain of Team Caucasian. The Ombudsman is around, he has a Commonwealth education, so I am sure he is familiar with the paddle. As for the second part of the rule, and even though civility is defined as formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech with emphasis of FORMAL, hence, just directing any remarks through the (Co-)Chair(s) complies with that already, referring to a troll as a troll most definitively is not impolite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll In particular if the troll referred to as a troll is a troll, whether carbon or silicon based. greetings, el On 2015-10-16 09:46 , Roelof Meijer wrote:
Dear mr. Baloney,
I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”). During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds. A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header.
Best,
Roelof Meijer
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com> Date: vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 01:45 [...]
It's not a policy on polite discourse if it is not enforced, especially when someone can be directly, publicly insulted without any fear of the Ombusdmans ability to enforce that policy. It is clear that after being publicly referred to impolitely and unfairly objectified as a "troll", an "it", "a silicone based lifeform", labeled as "hostile", and told to "give it a rest" simply for trying to participate and share new ideas, there is no actual ability for the Ombudsman to enforce the policy being referred to.
The very fact that the Ombusdman already sent a note previously asking members of this list to follow the policy on polite discourse, prior to my being assigned as a participant to CCWG-Accountability, shows me that there has long needed to be some sort of special review of the comments made by members of this mailing list to see if there is a atmosphere of disrespect that for some reason has evolved over a lengthy period of time. After such a review of the distractions, the real work of completing the ICANN transition process will be more successful in my opinion. Can the Ombudsman comment on this proposal and/or perform such a review?
Ron [...]
Once again, I would ask the community to take note of that email of direct insults directed at me. I ask that you please refrain from further unsubstantiated, unnecessary insults, which are today and were previously directed towards me, especially without any discernable context to explain why. Maybe it is because I am trying to participate in ccwg-accountability, one can only speculate. I honestly do not understand why from day one you have been insulting me, and I ask again that the Ombudsman take a look at the cacophony of insults to determine if there has long been an atmosphere of disrespect on this mailing list, as noted in the email which stated that in June the Ombudsman sent a letter to this email list requesting the group to act in a civil manner. Ron
It appears as if the email regarding the ombudsman "getting a spanking" has a measure of truth to it, but only in regards to its candor in correctly defining the ombudsman position as a mediator. The open mocking of the inability to deter direct insults helps establish, and also bring to light, the "inside the beltway corporate culture", flourishing and in control of ICANN, while the transition process is still not completed, like a golden cow that is endlessly milked. ICANN has existed for almost 20 years, think about how sad it is that 20 years after Bill Clinton signed the order to transition the internet, the ICANN's community hasn't agreed on a transition plan. Meanwhile, the Ombudsman position can't defend multistakeholderism for new interested "regular" people, so instead excuses are made for the bullying, even when those people openly bully the Ombudsman position, saying he can "know the use of the paddle". The ICANN multistakeholder model is supposed to be about anyone interested joining and participating, but the inside the beltway culture is designed to keep unknown people out of their party, out of their game. On June 22, 2015 the Ombudsman position issued a plea for civil discourse, and the only thing he can do after that failed plea, in my opinion, is to stop defending the multistakeholder process altogether in the hope that more power is given to the ombudsman position. The real reality of ICANN's multistakeholder process at this time is that not enough people can or will openly defend multistakeholderism, while the ombudsman position at ICANN is a deterrant that stopped deterring. The jig is up, "credential based bullying" of new participants is the proven rule here, a rule which just wasn't properly discussed. This mailing list is as "inside the beltway" as any corporation on this planet, pretending as best as it can to be inclusive. The multistakeholder process future world is the best future model there is, as long as you can keep it, once it is regained (if it ever existed in its truest form), and as long as it doesn't succumb to credential based bullying again, a future world based on participation and ideas, not trading business cards. Ron
Again, I would like the community and the Ombudsman to make note of that Direct and viscious insult calling me Mr. "Baloney". The name-calling on this mailing list appears to be part of the ccwg culture, sadly. I can understand why people would be hesitant to submit new ideas or comments to this email list, but insults should not deter the good work being accomplished by ccwg-accountability. "I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”). The message reference the Ombudsman's comment about polite discourse, not sure how you missed that part of the email, regardless of the "subject" of the email, most people respond to the "contents" of an email. "During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds." Again, the subject of an email is less relevant than the contents of an email. "A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time." We all have a certain level of dedication to the imoortant work of ccwg-accountability. If you can't read all the emails, may I suggest receiving the "digest" of emails? Not sure how to solve your issue of not being to read each and every email in full. There are classes on time-management, but that is your call, obviously. "I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header." That is not a "practice" good or bad, that I have ever heard of so my answer is no unless you can provide a source proving the existence of such a practice, thanks. Ron
Sounds like a work stream 5 issue to me. Kieren On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com> wrote:
Again, I would like the community and the Ombudsman to make note of that Direct and viscious insult calling me Mr. "Baloney". The name-calling on this mailing list appears to be part of the ccwg culture, sadly. I can understand why people would be hesitant to submit new ideas or comments to this email list, but insults should not deter the good work being accomplished by ccwg-accountability.
"I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”).
The message reference the Ombudsman's comment about polite discourse, not sure how you missed that part of the email, regardless of the "subject" of the email, most people respond to the "contents" of an email.
"During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds."
Again, the subject of an email is less relevant than the contents of an email.
"A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time."
We all have a certain level of dedication to the imoortant work of ccwg-accountability. If you can't read all the emails, may I suggest receiving the "digest" of emails? Not sure how to solve your issue of not being to read each and every email in full. There are classes on time-management, but that is your call, obviously.
"I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header."
That is not a "practice" good or bad, that I have ever heard of so my answer is no unless you can provide a source proving the existence of such a practice, thanks.
Ron
------------------------------ * From: * Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>; * To: * Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; * Subject: * Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location * Sent: * Fri, Oct 16, 2015 7:46:00 AM
Dear mr. Baloney,
I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”). During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds. A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header.
Best,
Roelof Meijer
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com> Date: vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 01:45 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>, " accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location
It's not a policy on polite discourse if it is not enforced, especially when someone can be directly, publicly insulted without any fear of the Ombusdmans ability to enforce that policy. It is clear that after being publicly referred to impolitely and unfairly objectified as a "troll", an "it", "a silicone based lifeform", labeled as "hostile", and told to "give it a rest" simply for trying to participate and share new ideas, there is no actual ability for the Ombudsman to enforce the policy being referred to.
The very fact that the Ombusdman already sent a note previously asking members of this list to follow the policy on polite discourse, prior to my being assigned as a participant to CCWG-Accountability, shows me that there has long needed to be some sort of special review of the comments made by members of this mailing list to see if there is a atmosphere of disrespect that for some reason has evolved over a lengthy period of time. After such a review of the distractions, the real work of completing the ICANN transition process will be more successful in my opinion. Can the Ombudsman comment on this proposal and/or perform such a review?
Ron
------------------------------ *From: *Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org>; *To: *Accountability Cross Community < accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location *Sent: *Thu, Oct 15, 2015 10:58:48 PM
Dear all,
For those who are attending in person, the CCWG meeting will take place in *Liffey Hall on the 1st floor *on the convention center. I sent information about the shuttles to/from the hotel in a prior email <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00...> .
For those attending remotely, please join us via the virtual meeting room at: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyhall2/
As a reminder, all ICANN meetings (including the chat rooms and mailing lists) follow ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior. For reference these are located here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en. In the words of the ICANN Ombudsman from a note he sent to this list on 22 June: "May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks.”
Looking forward to seeing you in 8 hours, Grace
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I recommend that if you wish to make an ombudsman complaint, you communicate with the ombudsman. Nothing the rest of us can do about it. avri On 16-Oct-15 18:15, Ron Baione wrote:
Again, I would like the community and the Ombudsman to make note of that Direct and viscious insult calling me Mr. "Baloney". The name-calling on this mailing list appears to be part of the ccwg culture, sadly. I can understand why people would be hesitant to submit new ideas or comments to this email list, but insults should not deter the good work being accomplished by ccwg-accountability.
"I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”).
The message reference the Ombudsman's comment about polite discourse, not sure how you missed that part of the email, regardless of the "subject" of the email, most people respond to the "contents" of an email.
"During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds."
Again, the subject of an email is less relevant than the contents of an email.
"A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time."
We all have a certain level of dedication to the imoortant work of ccwg-accountability. If you can't read all the emails, may I suggest receiving the "digest" of emails? Not sure how to solve your issue of not being to read each and every email in full. There are classes on time-management, but that is your call, obviously.
"I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header."
That is not a "practice" good or bad, that I have ever heard of so my answer is no unless you can provide a source proving the existence of such a practice, thanks.
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: * Roelof Meijer <Roelof.Meijer@sidn.nl>; *To: * Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; *Subject: * Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location *Sent: * Fri, Oct 16, 2015 7:46:00 AM
Dear mr. Baloney,
I, probably like quite a few others on this list, fail to see the link between your message below and the subject of this thread (“Meeting location”). During our last CCWG call, I commented on the number of emails we all have to deal with and the fact that practically in every mail thread of this group, there’s growing divergence between the title of the thread and the content of submissions of some as the discussion proceeds. A factor that makes it very difficult for the reader to just read those emails that are worth the time.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would stick to the good practice of ensuring that the content of your message is aligned with subject specified in the header.
Best,
Roelof Meijer
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <javascript:return>> on behalf of Ron Baione <ron.baione@yahoo.com <javascript:return>> Date: vrijdag 16 oktober 2015 01:45 To: Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <javascript:return>>, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:return>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:return>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location
It's not a policy on polite discourse if it is not enforced, especially when someone can be directly, publicly insulted without any fear of the Ombusdmans ability to enforce that policy. It is clear that after being publicly referred to impolitely and unfairly objectified as a "troll", an "it", "a silicone based lifeform", labeled as "hostile", and told to "give it a rest" simply for trying to participate and share new ideas, there is no actual ability for the Ombudsman to enforce the policy being referred to.
The very fact that the Ombusdman already sent a note previously asking members of this list to follow the policy on polite discourse, prior to my being assigned as a participant to CCWG-Accountability, shows me that there has long needed to be some sort of special review of the comments made by members of this mailing list to see if there is a atmosphere of disrespect that for some reason has evolved over a lengthy period of time. After such a review of the distractions, the real work of completing the ICANN transition process will be more successful in my opinion. Can the Ombudsman comment on this proposal and/or perform such a review?
Ron
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From: *Grace Abuhamad <grace.abuhamad@icann.org <javascript:return>>; *To: *Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <javascript:return>>; *Subject: *[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting location *Sent: *Thu, Oct 15, 2015 10:58:48 PM
Dear all,
For those who are attending in person, the CCWG meeting will take place in *Liffey Hall on the 1st floor *on the convention center. I sent information about the shuttles to/from the hotel in aprior email <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-October/00...>.
For those attending remotely, please join us via the virtual meeting room at: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/dub54-liffeyhall2/
As a reminder, all ICANN meetings (including the chat rooms and mailing lists) follow ICANN’s Expected Standards of Behavior. For reference these are located here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/expected-standards-2012-05-15-en. In the words of the ICANN Ombudsman from a note he sent to this list on 22 June: "May I implore participants to continue to note the ICANN policy on polite discourse. It is important to have a strong and vigorous debate but we don't need to make personal attacks on each other. A polite note of disagreement should be sufficient, and has been frequently used. But if we start to attack individuals on list, this will distract us from the real tasks.”
Looking forward to seeing you in 8 hours, Grace
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Grace Abuhamad -
Kieren McCarthy -
Roelof Meijer -
Ron Baione