Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>]

Ellen,

I have found your posting very valuable, but based on an assumption that
 is different from the one I make. Let me detail the difference in our 
two approaches, before briefly going over some key points of your post.

You seem to consider "GA-list"="GA-Membership", and therefore as a 
consequence "vote on the GA-list"="membership vote".

I consider, OTOH, the GA-list a tool for communication, and the GA-
Membership something that has still to be defined.

IMHO, we can only speak of Membership when a "contract" exist between 
the individual (member) and the body, by which there is at least:
- clear identification of the individual beyond reasonable doubt;
- a well-defined system of benefit-duties that distinguishes the member 
from the non-member.
None of the above conditions currently exist on the GA-list: therefore 
it cannot be considered a proper membership body.

Now to your post.

(from Harald:)
>>
>>It is now time for an opinion poll on the proposed ruleset. By the end
 of
>>the week, we hope that we can have a decision.
>

(from you:)
>
>First, the call for a vote is contained in a message that does not even

>bear proper description in the subject header
>
>Second, we do not know what percentage of member votes should be 
considered
>a "consensus" that results in adoption of these rules. Should the
>prevailing recommendation be imposed on the entire membership if only a

>small percentage of GA members vote?


Harald called this an "opinion poll" (BTW, I concur with this definition
, as the conditions for running a proper vote do not exist for the time 
being), you consider it a "vote", hence the difference of opinions.


>
>Third, the Rights to Post are subjective as to content, cumbersome and
>vague;  they place sole discretion in the hands of a Sergeants at Arms,
 who
>may a) unilaterally impose posting limits; b) determine what 
constitutes
>decorum and relevant business of the GA, and c) moderate content.   
These
>rights do not describe an "open forum".

Correct. The "open forum" is the "ga-unfiltered@dnso.org" that everybody
 can choose to join. Those who prefer a monitored environment, OTOH, may
 choose to subscribe to the "ga@dnso.org".
Whoever finds that the "filters" are too restrictive, may always go to 
the other list. Freedom of choice is, IMHO, better than imposing on 
everybody a one-size-fits-all model of unfiltered mailing list.


<technical matters snipped - same consideration about "membership"=
"participation to the GA applies">

>
>Finally, and most disturbing, I feel the Rights to Post represent the
>camel's nose under the mailing rules tent, with the following 
declaration:
>
>	It [the mailing list] is not itself a decision-making body.
>

The GA, IMHO, should become a decision-making body (which it is not, 
under the current ICANN Bylaws, as everybody had a chance to see).

This said, I am claiming that the GA-mailing list (or any loosely-
managed mailing list) can not be a proper decision-making body, because 
of the inherent lack of control of the identity and qualification of the
 voters, lack of control on multiple ballots, and so on.

The longer we will postpone the definition of a proper mechanism for 
membership, the further away we will place the objective of making of 
the GA a decision-making body.

Regards
Roberto