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

Re: [ga] Re: Proposal for list rules/actions

Patrick and all DNSO'ers,

  Some very good recommendations and ideas here Patrick.  I believe
that these should be given some serious consideration and put up
for possible amendment as well as a vote on Joops (Voting Booth?)...

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> Harald, and everyone:
> As a follow-up to my previous post I'd like to identify and offer my own
> opinions/recommendations regarding major points of
> objection/discussion/suggested amendments to certain aspects of your
> proposal so that subsequent action may be taken as appropriate. I believe
> that some such actions are vital in reflecting a structure and ruleset
> that creates a more equitable and representative set of checks and
> balances, serve to improve upon the original safeguards proposed to limit
> the ability of the disruptive to cause damage and consume resources, and
> most importantly is agreeable to the widest number of participants in
> these discussion.
> The current situation where the Chair has made a unilateral decision
> to adopt Harald's proposal in total, based on the results of what we were
> told was merely an "opinion poll", a poll where there is ample evidence
> of fraud, is inappropriate to say the least.
> The following is in no way intended to be a comprehensive list, including
> only those items I can recollect/have an opinion on, and I would like to
> invite further items/revisions/comments/etc.:
> 1) Language regarding whether or not the GA mailing list is a
>    decision-making body or not.
>    My personal opinion is that any such language should be stricken
>    as the proposal was and is not the proper place to determine
>    or make statements regarding this.
> 2) In deciding to have a filtered list and an unfiltered list, which list
>    is the "official" GA mailing list?
>    I believe that if two seperate lists are maintained both lists
>    constitute an "official" record, and as such identical, web-based
>    access should be provided to both lists.
>    Providing identical access provides an easy and effective way
>    for *external* parties to evaluate for themselves claims of
>    bias or "censorship," and if they are interested to decide *for
>    themselves* which list is appropriate for them.
>    Offering web-access also allows everyone a simple, convienent place
>    to point those unfamilar with particular individuals behaviour and
>    or identity to so that they can judge for themselves whether or
>    not an individual is who they say they are and warrant speaking to.
>    Given the continuing and unfortunately numerous successful incidences
>    of certains individual fraudulently misrepresenting themselves,
>    in some cases doing such a thorough job that they receive quotations in
>    the press, I believe this to be a very important resource to provide
>    for the community at large.
>    As Ellen Rony has so aptly stated previously: "on the Internet no one
>    knows you're a dog." One of the only ways available to someone to make
>    this determination is by having simple, ready access to a record of
>    their statements.
>    Making this data only available via FTP as has been suggested by
>    someone is insufficient as it renders search and retrevial much more
>    difficult especially to those not technically inclined and as such much
>    less likely to be reviewed. This may actually have been the intent
>    of the individual who suggested that, however, while I understand the
>    intent is to not provide a few misbehaving individuals an equal
>    platform, I do not believe that obsuring the entire record is the
>    most sensible course of action. I feel even more strongly that this is
>    the case if there are two completely distinct lists where individuals
>    have voluntarily chosen the "unfiltered" list and are participating
>    in good faith. The same level of display and access to this
>    record doesn't serve as a platform for the disruptive, as they have
>    no meaningful platform. Rather it serves as an easily available,
>    ongoing substantiation of the need for rules and filters in the first
>    place, and as a warning to those that might be duped into taking
>    one of these individuals seriously.
>    In reality, I don't believe it isn't necessary to have two
>    entirely seperate lists at all, which may provide a solution
>    that will make most everyone happy, as I will explain in the next item.
> 3) The nature of and relationship between the filtered and unfiltered
>    lists.
>    I believe I mentioned this before in some form. After giving it
>    some thought, I'd like to offer a much more clarified view
>    and suggestion.
>    The suggestion changes the character and relationships of the
>    lists and may initially appear a bit confusing, however I
>    believe it to be a good idea if it is thought through, or at least one
>    that I hope you all will consider.
>    Somewhat differently from the proposal and perhaps the common view
>    of distinct filtered and unfiltered lists, I see the purpose of the
>    unfiltered version of the list as two-fold:
>      o As a place where those individuals for whom "list ettiquete"
>        rules are unecessary as they behave civilly but for whom
>        filtering results in sufficient moral or other objections to
>        subscribe.
>      o As a place where those censured for their misbehaviour on
>        the filtered list are restricted for the term of the censure.
>    It would seem reasonable and appropriate to me that the first group
>    have the ability to post to the filtered list subject of course
>    to the corresponding ruleset. Their subscription to the unfiltered
>    list due to objections regarding filtering should not
>    automatically preclude those individuals from being heard by everyone.
>    It would likewise seem reasonable when the ability of an individual to
>    post to the filtered list has been removed for violation of "filtered"
>    list policies, that a notice of their pending readmission be posted to
>    the filtered list by the SAA(s), and their behaviour on the
>    "unfiltered" list be reviewed upon request or objection with
>    specific references to actions/statements believed to be in
>    violation of filtered list rules before reinstatement of posting rights
>    to that list.
>    Only the actions of the individual will result in the removal of
>    posting rights to the filtered version of the list, a removal that
>    would not (hopefully) be enacted lightly. Given the gravity of any
>    action/statements warranting suspension, I do not believe that it is in
>    anyones best interest to reinstate any individuals posting rights to
>    the filtered list if they continue in, or engage in any new/different
>    pattern of behaviour that would have resulted in their removal from the
>    filtered list.
>    By only reviewing behaviour upon request/objection with specific
>    references to posts made on the unfiltered GA list, the burden
>    of "montioring" an individuals entire history of behaviour that an SAA
>    might otherwise have to perform is removed, only necessitating review
>    of a single or very few posts.
>    "Anything may go" on the unfiltered version of the list, however I see
>    no problem or conflict in considering the behaviour on the unfiltered
>    version of the list of any individual seeking readmittance to the
>    filtered version of the list if it is made clear that a determination
>    may be based on such criteria.
>    If you can see any sense in such a "probationary" approach, then I
>    believe it becomes clear that there isn't any actual need to have two
>    seperate and distinct "filtered" and "unfiltered" lists at all from an
>    administration standpoint. Consider this:
>        o Everyone receives posts to the "filtered" version of the list.
>        o Everyone who is not marked as being "filtered"(from posting) may
>          post to the list.
>        o Everyone who *is* marked as being filtered(from posting) is
>          limited to a certain number of posts per day and has
>          their posts shunted off to only the subset of list subscribers
>          that have chosen the "unfiltered" option where the mail-from/reply
>          to address is set to that of the sender rather than the list.
>          The purpose of this to decrease the number of posts sent to the
>          list from the "unfiltered in good standing" in response to those
>          being filtered.
>          Similarly, posts from the filtered would be flagged as such,
>          making it is a simple matter to have whatever web-based
>          viewing/search software display the "filtered" or
>          "unfiltered" view of the archive with little additional overhead.
> I believe that implementation of such a system would result in:
>      o A much more cohesive and comprehensive ongoing dialogue among
>        *everyone* that isn't disruptive interested in the issues of the GA
>        regardless of their views on filtering
>      o Lessening of overhead in maintaining,archiving, and displaying
>        the contents of two entirely seperate lists.
>      o Afford those who are capable of learning how to behave themselves
>        to opportunity to do so, while preventing those that can't or
>        aren't willing to from regular, guaranteed reinstatement of posting
>        privleges to the filtered list, which further limits the
>        potential frequency of disruptions.
>      o Further reduce the noise, disruption and overhead associated
>        with disruptive individuals who are being filtered by both directly
>        limiting the volume of their posts, and indirectly reducing the
>        number of messages needed to be delivered/archived by setting the
>        mail-from/reply header to them rather than to the list.
> It is my opinion that the ability to post to the "filtered" list should be
> seen as a right, and as such everyone should(and does) automatically have
> that ability. However, rights come with responsiblities as we are
> discussing implementing; the right to post is in no way absolute, and is
> appropriately removed from those unwilling to accept basic responsibility.
> I do not believe that it is necessary to create a completely seperate
> playground(mailing list) in deference to the disruptive.
> I do not believe it is necessary for the GA as a whole to lose the
> meaningful participation of those who simply object to filtering.
> I also do not believe it is the responsibility of any organization to
> provide those who have shown themselves to be so lacking in common decency
> and honesty as to necessitate taking such unfortunate actions the
> opportunity to interact with the same freedom, and ease in consuming
> unlimited resources afforded to those who use such resources
> respectfully.
> The results of the current course of action based on the apparently common
> view of the nature and relationship of the mailing lists, in which each
> mailing list is completely seperate, and specific aspects or lack thereof
> within your proposal are clear:
>        a) Two completely seperate lists, with a potentially completely
>           different subscriber base will result in potentially completely
>           unrelated  discussions or parallel conversations in which the
>           benefits of the thoughts/ideas/opinions of those civil
>           participants who choose the "unfiltered" list on principle will
>           be lost to the GA as a whole.
>           or
>        b) Individuals will be forced to subscribe to both lists and
>           submit all their posts/responses to both lists, greatly
>           increasing the amount of resouces required to handle this.
>        c) Filtered list members would be subjected to the same abusive,
>           disruptive behaviour of those committed to such acts on a
>           periodic, ongoing basis as they are re-admitted subject to
>           the lapse in a suspension period lasting the length of one of a
>           few fixed durations, arbitrarily arrived at by a single SAA,
>           and irrespective of any relevant conduct during the time of the
>           suspension.
>        d) By creating a distinct list with no rules and where "anything
>           goes," the disruptive are able to consume a nearly equal,
>           equal, or even greater amount of resources than everyone else.
> 4) The SAA(s)
>    The proposal provides for only one Sergeant at Arms, selected by
>    Roberto. I believe this to be both inadequate and inappropriate.
>    I'd propose(again) that there are three Sergeant at Arms(to avoid ties,
>    elected by the mailing list membership, and not *selected* by Roberto.
>    Again, I am not questioning Roberto, however this issue transcends
>    individual personalities, and as such I believe that the power
>    to remove someones ability to speak should not be carried by a single
>    individual, and that those individuals should be chosen by those that
>    will be affected by such decisions rather than by a potentially
>    arbitrary process.
> 5) The determination and length of suspension.
>    Barring activities such as Denial-of-Service attacks(which should
>    result in immediate removal and contacting the proper authorities)
>    the length of suspension should be applied according to agreed
>    upon formula(1st, 2nd, 3rd offense, length relative to denial of
>    readmission to filtered list etc.) and *never* should
>    be determined in an arbitrary fashion by the SAA(s). The role
>    of the SAA(s) should be to determine if a violation warranting
>    suspension has occured. They should not be in the business of
>    deciding the length of the "punishment," except as defined
>    by standardized, concrete guidelines, as any system where they
>    decide length is subject solely to their own value system. The
>    arbitrary and potentially unfair nature of such a system is amplified
>    by the presence of only a single SAA selected by the Chair.
>    Any suspensions should be conducted in a completely consistent,
>    equitable and unbiased fashion. Allowing the SAA(s) to choose
>    length of suspension does not create such an enviroment and increases
>    the potential for abuse.
> 6) The Appeals process.
>    An appeal, just as action to censure, should not be decided by a single
>    individual.  Anyone wishing to appeal the decision of the SAA(s) should
>    be required to garner a sufficient vote of support among list
>    members(say 10( or a percentage of list members?)) for such an appeal
>    for it to be considered. Pending demonstration of sufficient support,
>    the issue should be put before the list membership, and *not* to the
>    Chair. Beyond the stated rules and judgement of the SAA(s), it should
>    be the list members that decide what is and is not appropriate
>    behaviour on THEIR list.
>    An appeals process as described above avoids potentially arbitrary,
>    biased decisions by a single individual, creates checks and
>    balances against a potentially "captured" group of SAA's and/or Chair,
>    and also makes it very difficult for an individual to consume a
>    large quantity of resources by filing a frivolous and/or baseless appeal.
> I'd like to reiterate that any structure of this nature must transcend
> individual personalities making an equitable, effective system of checks
> and balances vital in whatever plan is implemented.
> I would welcome everyone's thoughts on any or all of this.
> I'd like to also ask the Chair that pending discussion/further revisions
> of any proposal(s) to amend aspects of Harald's proposal be put to the
> list members to decide, rather than adopted or rejected by fiat.
> Finally, if positions are going to be collected, and action is taken
> based on the expression of those positions, let's call them what they
> are: VOTES and not "opinion polls."
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

James Touton
Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
INEGRoup (Stakeholder)

NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at