[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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

On 1/18/00, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>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.

Mr. Gaetano:  Au contraire.  At the Names Council meeting on June 25, 1999,
the GA list was defined as the General Assembly of the DNSO.  See

"It was then decided to take decisions on Amadeušs proposal first as it
concerns the GA:

    1.It should be announced that the GA exists and is recognised according
to the bylaws (unanimously accepted)
    2.the discuss@dnso.org list is regarded to be the GA of the DNSO
(unanimously accepted) "

>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.

Yet the Names Council *unamiously* accepted on June 25, 1999 that the GA
existed and the mailing list (now ga@dnso.org but previously
discuss@dnso.org) comprised the General Assembly.  So you need to take up
your arguments with the Names Council, not me.  I am just restating the
public record as I know it, although things are so convoluted that
subsequent administrative meetings may have altered the decision noted
above.  Have they?

>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.
 Call it a poll or a vote, the bottom line is that list subscribers will be
held to the results, so our difference of opinions and semantics are

>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".

There is a subtle bias in the nomenclature suggested here.  The official
archive is the unfiltered one, and it should appear at ga@dnso.org.
For those who prefer a monitored environment, it could appear at

>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.

I have no objection to two lists or three (a digest version perhaps), but
the basic unmonitored list is the true record, and it should be posted at

>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.

This discussion should focus solely on the RIGHTS TO POST not on whether or
not the GA is a decision-making body.  I object to using this mailing list
rules opinion poll to extend the discussion to a policy decision regarding
the rights inherent in GA membership.  You've got apples and pianos here.

Ellen Rony                         ____             The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author		       ^..^     )6     http://www.domainhandbook.com
+1  415.435.5010    	       (oo) -^--
                                   W   W
	   DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
    1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html