RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
_might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
perhaps more significant business.

Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it a
responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing thin,
and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard as
"non-productive" communications.

Peter de Blanc


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
Roessler
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:58 AM
To: DannyYounger@cs.com
Cc: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair


On 2001-07-08 22:03:42 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:

>I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list
>in the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to 
>the main GA list by 62 individuals.  Six people accounted for half 
>of all the posts.

[...]

>Let us consider what our list would have been like if these
>individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have 
>received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average 
>of one post per individual about every 3-4 days).

>I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly
>might best be served by further restricting the number of 
>allowable daily postings in order to cut down on the "noise". 
>Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list would be sensible, 
>if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.

As you demonstrated yourself, it would be entirely sufficient to 
enforce the existing rules - at least in the case of regular 
offenses.  Just imagine what would happen if the list monitors were 
doing their work: The six people you mentioned (with the possible 
exception of Patrick) would be "on holidays", and the list traffic 
would be considerably reduced.

So there is really no actual need to further restrict the number of 
postings per day - IF the current rules are actually applied.

Note, BTW, that those who suggest "fuzzy" posting quotas (it's just 
one over the 5 posts per day) are basically just trying to push the 
posting quota up.  

Saying that minor violations (one or two postings ov er the quota) 
don't lead to sanctions is just equivalent to lifting the quota to 6 
or 7 postings per day.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html