[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: [ga] Re: What list forwards to what list
> 1) Is any natural person[*] currently being blocked from subscribing
> this list?
> 2) Is any natural person[*] who is subscribed to this list blocked
> posting to this list?
>[*] I use the term "natural person" to summarize the fact that list
>subscribers ought to meet the minimal standard of actually existing,
>existing but once.
To both questions the answer is "no".
Moreover, should I find out that the information I have is incorrect,
and that there is a case falling in the description you give, I will use
my authority to remove the block.
This said, in the future there will be persons [*] that will be excluded
either from the subscription to the lists, or from the posting to the
lists, but this will be done according to the rules that are posted and
approved, and with the additional guarantee that the name of the person
[*] and the reason for removal of his/her rights will be posted.
>If the answer to either question is "yes", then this list is censured.
>If you don't like Joe B. or Jeff W., then set up your own private
>If you need help setting them up, just ask.
>But please don't use your failure to exercise self-protection as an
>to gag those you don't agree with.
You are a person that I often disagree with.
I acknowledge that we have a dramatically different vision of the DNS,
and in particular I disagree vehemently with your position on the
This said, I accepted always the discussion with you, and I moreover
acknowledge your superior (in relation to my limited one) competence in
the fields of technology and law.
I will be ashamed for the rest of my life if I tried to censor one of
your argumentations, that I always read with interest, or even if I did
not react to the attempt by third parties to censor your ideas,
different from mine.
But the case of the personalities you mention is a different one.
I have no idea if I agree or disagree with them.
In fact, I cannot recall even one single post from them that was
relevant to issues like the assessment of the root system, the
introduction of new gTLDs, and so on. Or maybe there is some, but it is
just drawned in the ocean of words about other issues.
What I would like to target, and what the rules will address, is not the
legitime expression of dissent on the issues, but the improper usage of
unnecessary scurrilous language and/or the endless repetition of
stereotyped sentences, mostly irrelevant to the topic under discussion,
that only have the effect to limit the debate by nauseating the
Rest assured that, should this improper use of the freedom of the
posting rights in the GA mailing list happen in the future, I will
approve the reduction of the posting rights that the SAAs will propose.
Rest also assured that, and you all will be able to witnesses the events
by monitoring at your will the unfiltered list and the report on SAAs
actions, if any attempt will be made by any SAA to cut relevant items of
debate, I will intervene.