Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules

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

Karl wrote:
>
>Since you chose to impose censorship, I chose to leave this group.
>

Karl,

While I am not particularly influenced by insults and menaces by the 
(few) people that indulge in this childish practice, I am particularly 
upset by your decision.

First of all, because it will deprive the GA of a voice that brings a 
different POV, that is very useful for the good health of the debate.

But most important, because it comes on a difference of opinion about a 
subject that is very important for me: freedom of expression.

The difference of opinion is about where to draw the line.
As I said before, I read with much interest your postings, as well as 
those of many others, like Dan and Ellen. We seldom agree. I even recall
 that I have been very critical of some of the positions of the BWG, but
 never the idea of limiting the freedom of speech of the people like you
 has crossed my mind. Moreover, I would fight for your right to express 
your opinions (that I don't share), and I told you in private postings 
that I think that your presence in the ICANN BoD would be beneficial. In
 fact, I even supported your nomination as DNSO candidate (but I think 
that your role is more the one of an At-Large Director).

Why am I telling you this? Because I believe, and here comes the 
disagreement, that at a certain point you have to draw the line between 
the expression of alternative positions on issues at hand, and 
expression of nothing, that are even sidetracking the debate, and 
therefore ultimately reducing the possibility for ideas and proposals 
that are alternative to the ones of the "ruling powers".

My point is that while there is absolutely no doubt that "censorship" of
 ideas should never have citizenship here (or anywhere else, for this 
matter), the enforcement of rules of behaviour is a different ball game.


Combine this with the fact that who uses abusive language or multiple 
identities writes much, but sais nothing, and you have the reason for 
the decision of providing a monitored list for those who cannot (or do 
not want) to bother in "filtering". For the others, a "full" list, 
including even postings from non-members, is available.
The inconditionals of the "no monitoring" can easily subscribe to the 
full list, and do their own filtering. How can this possibly be called 
"censorship"?

One last question.
You claim that the GA has little power vs. the NC, and that the NC has 
little power vs. ICANN, and so on (see ref. below):

>Not that I'm leaving a body that has any power - the General Assembly 
is
>powerless and ignorred by the Names Council of the DNSO.  And the Names

>Council is ignorred by the ICANN board.  And the ICANN board is 
routinely
>bypassed by ICANN's executive officers.
>

Do you *really* think that the best way to increase the power of the GA 
is to quit the boat now?

Regards
Roberto