[ga-rules] Excess posting limits

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Joanna Lane has posted on ga@dnso.org a comment on
excess posting limits (pertaining to guess who?) that has
in it a very well thought out analysis by Kent Crispin of
the mechanics of running a list that is dedicated to some
particular, narrow, but important issue.  The principles
that he sets out are hauntingly consistent with what has
been set out in the Best Practices, and for that reason
I copy here some of her post.  I highly recommend reading
Kent Crispin's analysis.  Except for the mention of NC
involvement, which I take to have been a necessary
part of the functioning of that group, his analysis describes
precisely the kinds of problems that I believe can be
avoided (or at least minimized) by the use of Best
Practices.

(I concur with Joanna's statement that proxy posting is not (yet) an ISSUE,
but anyone who may think otherwise and want to pursue it is of course entirely
free to do so.  Under Best Practices, a SUGGESTION that it is would of
course be treated as such, and like any other thing that may arise, would then
survive or go down in smoke on its own merits. And to clarify what is meant
by "treating" a SUGGESTION, there would either be no interest at all, as
shown by zilch posts (it dies a natural death); an excited response (as part
of a DISCUSSION) wherein someone sets out good reasons for pursuing
the matter (something in the form of a PROPOSAL gets posted), there then
occurs a DEBATE, etc., etc.  Best Practices, as posted so far in Part I,
is not a set of rules to be followed, but rather (a) a language in which things
that will naturally occur in any event can be described, and (b) a suggestion
as to how an ISSUE can be pursued in an efficient and effective manner so
as to begin earning a level of credibility and legitimacy that would serve it
well should it actually rise to the level of a MOTION.)

Bill Lovell
___

> Whether it *should* be treated as BEST PRACTICE or not is another ISSUE, but
> it seems to occur so infrequently, it doesn't seem worth a CALL FOR ACTION.
>
> While I did not identify the relevant URLs in the Archives as I had hoped, I
> did come across a position paper on procedural issues from Kent, posted only
> about six months ago, which may be of interest:-

> "It is important, though, that WGs have some procedural freedom -- the
> criteria for success of the WG should be the documents produced, not how
> slavishly the WG followed procedure.  This procedural freedom is
> necessary if the procedures are to evolve and develop over time."  (*)
>
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/msg01428.html
Bill Lovell

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm