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@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@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@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@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@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------