[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough
At 13:47 14.02.00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
>I again renew my call that all members of the GA list must validate by some
>form of identification, such as a govt. issued ID.
>It is way too easy for people with AOL accounts or any of the numerous free
>email/ISP services to just create new/additional aliases.
>I am prepared to send in a copy of my state issued ID, and I see no reason
>why this should not be a requirement. Many conferences require the same
>type of thing at check-in, so this would be no different. Otherwise we
>will continue to be subjected to the PCCF's and INEGroup's numerous
>aliases and attempts to disrupt, and who knows who else who might be
>participating with the intent to disrupt.
I think this proposal warrants consideration for the debate on permanent
rules that we need to have before the end of April.
The immediate objections I have to it are:
- Processing costs for sending, receiving, verifying and storing the
documentation. Someone has to cover this.
- The fact that it is not useful against a disrupter who is willing to be
identified. So it can't be the only rule.
But it belongs on the table for April.
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html