[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> Michael Froomkin wrote:
> >There is much I agree with in Karl's post, but these especially (plus
> >On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> >> There is no reason to limit the GA to people who "have a knowledge"
> >> the "issues pertaining to the areas". There are many who don't yet
> >> understand the issues but who know that they are impacted by the
> >> outcome.
> >The last thing the GA needs is non-inclusiveness.
> I agree, but what is under debate now is not the language of ICANN
> bylaws, but the rules that we should give ourselves for the GA list.
As the DNSO is a part of ICANN your point here is moot Roberto.
> To concentrate on the ICANN Bylaws now (even if for a legitimate
> concern) adds yet another distraction that lowers the already small
> possibility to get an agreement.
Agreement isn't the situation here. Abiding by the ICANN bylaws and
the White Paper is.
> Anyway, from the practical point of view, does anybody think that
> there's a slight chance that somebody will be excluded from the GA list
> on the basis of a low knowledge of the technicalities?
No it is not likely, nor should it be a restriction.
> >> I don't agree with that. I do believe that those who wish to do so
> >> be able to participate anonymously using some handle. But the list
> >> names & handles should be available to all.
> >The only difficulty I see here is how to handle votes. Discussions can
> >by anonymous entities, indeed this is probably a constitutional right
> >the US (and while the US constitution is not applicable to a private
> >it would be sad to be consciously constructing a body intended to be
> >*less* supportive of basic human rights than the US government). On
> >other hand, votes need to be tied to bodies to prevent ballot-stuffing.
> Personally, I don't see the need for the "who" implementation.
> But I think that this is linked to the fact that I see the GA as a forum
> , and some other participants see it as a legislative body.
Good point here Roberto. I see it as a policy development group
for DNS matters.
> If and when the GA will become a legislative body, I would agree. For
> the time being, I keep my point.
And what point is that? You are a bit unclear here Roberto.
> Moreover, in practical terms, a lot of people are afraid of the spamming
> that may potentially follow a subscription to the GA list. While this
> has been proven moot (because anyway your E-Mail address will be
> publicly available on your first post), it is still an obstacle to
> participation. Don't forget that the final target is to have an ICANN At
> -Large membership of 5000: if we are unable to drive a couple of
> thousands in the GA-DNSO, we're not really making things easy for the
> future developments.
The arbitrary number that ICANN has edicted is in violation of their
agreement, the MoU with the NTIA as well as the White Paper. The ICANN
Board knows this very well, as does the NTIA. It cannot stand. Hence some
your point here is also moot.
> >> I don't agree with the entire "Sergeant-at-arms" concept. If there
> >> someone who is to be sanctioned, then that should be the decision of
> >> the entire GA, made openly and on a clearly stated question.
> >So long as the Sergeant at arms announces decisions in real time, and
> >written procedures to go by, and can be removed for misbehavior, by the
> >as a whole, I think this may be tolerable if there is an official and
> >complete archive of the uncensored list (see below).
> >> > ACCESS TO UNFILTERED LIST
> >> > -------------------------
> >> > There exists an open list that can be subscribed to: ga-
> >I am not comfortable with the idea that the official record is
> >The official record includes all the crazies. That's life. If a nut
> >submits something to a government department they don't get to throw it
> >away; they file it. Plus without an archive, forming an opinion about
> >past censorship becomes nearly impossible.
> First of all, I understand that "to file a record", and to be able to
> produce it in case of need to interested parties, does not necessarly
> mean "to publish it online in real time".
> Secondly, according to my information, after having gone through an
> experience similar to the one we are witnessing now, the Canadian
> Government took a different approach about the filing system ;>).
> >> The official list of the GA must be totally uncensored.
> >> Sensitive groups can establish their own e-mail exploders that filter
> >> those they don't want to hear. But those are not "official" lists.
> >I don't mind there being an official censored list, but only so long as
> >there's an official uncensored one too.
> >> > It will not be archved on the DNSO site; others may choose to
> >> archive it if they feel like it.
> >This is probably the most disturbing suggestion. It feels like a
> >hole". There must be an official archive of the uncensored list in
> >for people to be able to assure themselves that the censors are
> >in the desired manner. Otherwise they must take it on faith.
> First of all, everybody is welcome to keep track of the traffic and to
> build his/her own archive. BTW, do we have volounteers?
> Secondly, the question is not "to archive" or "not to archive": of
> course the records will be kept by DNSO Listadmin (at least to have
> legal evidence in the not unlikely case of court trial). The question is
> whether to provide real-time, on-line access to the integral set of
> messages (BTW, becoming liable in some jurisdictions of the material
> contained therein).
> This, as I said, counterbalanced by no advantage, as any subscriber
> could decide to set up its archive, and in case of discrepancy on
> different online archives, we have the "official" DNSO archive (offline)
> for reference.
> >> Since the uncensored list must be the official list, it must be
> >> archived in total.
> >This is, I repeat, essential.
> See above. It will be archived, no doubt.
> >> > The existence of this list will make it possible to have
> >> > verification of what the filtering function does.
> >> No "independent verification" is possible unless the list is fully
> >> completely archived.
> >Yes, I too am unclear on how one could -- after the fact, when one is
> >of an allegation of political manipulation two weeks ago -- verify its
> >truth or falsity if there is not an official record of the uncensored
> >list. And one needs that ability.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208