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

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

Roberto and all Assembly members remaining,

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Hi, Ellen.
> Sorry to reply this late, but your message has been buried in hundreds
> of private messages by Joe Baptista, and I did not read it until some
> cleanup has been done.

  It seems that you may have brought upon yourself the crop of
the bad seed that you have planted.  Well you were adequately warned.
More will come I am sure.

> Please see my comments in the text.
> >Hi, Roberto:
> >
> >Thank you for copying me on your note to Karl.  It is clear that you
> feel
> >some anguish at the recent events with the GA mailing list rules and
> our
> >subsequent unsubscriptions.
> >
> Valuable people, whatever their opinion on the issues, is a scarce
> resource these days.

  It certainly is Roberto.  I am sorry to say that you are not one of
those valuable people and you have played a central role in eliminating
or discouraging those very valuable people from participating.  I hope
that the result is what you had hoped for.  I am sure that you will be
remembered historically for it.

> I hate to see you (Ellen), Karl, and Dan go due to the application of
> monitoring rules, as much as I hated to see other people fleeing the
> list in the past due to the lack of monitoring rules.

  Well as I recall very few left as a lack of monitoring rules, at least
according to the Majordomo lists I have gotten.  In fact before
the rules in which there was NO mandate for were imposed,
the list was actually growing in numbers.  I seem to recall that
you were worried about that as well.  Something about "Noise

> My only hope is that we can bring this matter to a vote, and that either
>  group will accept the result, and live with the situation.

 Yes possibly this will be a saving grace in part for the DNSO
General assembly.  But unless or until the FRAUDULENT
Votes taken ending October 8th '99 and the "Chair" Vote
are reheld, it won't matter much.

> >> 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
> >
> >Taken to its extremes, a proposal that holds at its core a prohibition
> >against posting an "expression of nothing" might disallow the posting
> of a
> >joke, of ISOC minutes, of a new book on the market that is only
> >tangentially related to the subject at hand, of illness in the family
> that
> >prevents timely response, or a rant of an opposing point of view.  I
> >believe you can make rules as to behavior (no crossposting, no email
> >spoofing) but rules as to expression are a slippery slope that can
> slide
> >subtly into censorship.  Here's a clue:  if it is difficult to define
> the
> >criteria of what constitutes an "expression of nothing", then you
> cannot
> >make such rules.
> >
> What I was trying to say is that nothing that could have some influence
> on the scope of the list has been "censored". But, of course, if you
> look at things from the strict "question of principle", you are right.
> >Two lists just provide a cludgely workaround. It's difficult to see
> what
> >that accomplishes, except to rebut complaints of censorship, never mind
> >that the full list is rea-only.
> >
> >You fail to address why individual filters aren't sufficient to manage
> the
> >concern about "expression of nothing".   You could, for example, impose
>  a
> >five message per day rule.  That would raise hackles from some, but it
> >wouldn't be enough reason to unsubscribe from a list because it would
> apply
> >to all of us equally and objectively.
> >
> >You could also impose rules that bounce any crossposted messages and
> that
> >unsubscribe people who have spoofed mailbox addresses.  That is a
> >legitimate approach to a clear breaches of netiquette.  Multiple
> identities
> >is more difficult to identify and thus, to work into your mailing list
> >rules.  I know of a lady who uses pseudo names on the Internet because
> she
> >wants to keep her identity secret from a known harasser.  Another who
> is
> >working on litigation for a client and doesn't want the defendant to
> pursue
> >her.
> >
> >>Do you *really* think that the best way to increase the power of the
> GA
> >>is to quit the boat now?
> >
> >Do you really think that the best way to increase the power of the GA
> is to
> >muzzle free expression? That is, in essence, what your rules have
> >accomplished.
> If "free expression" is the proposal of different ideas and different
> POV on the issues at hand, the answer is "no".
> If "free expression" is libel and slander, than, "yes", I believe that
> the reduction thereof will greatly increase the power of the GA.

  As you Harald, Kent, William and The DNSO List admin. are the main
perpetrators of slander on this list, the reduction or your participation
in those activities and practices would I am sure be greatly appreciated.

> >
> >If the GA group remained on task, people would ignore the banter of
> those
> >who do not contribute to informative discussion.  Listmembers are free
> to
> >ignore those who contribute nothing and to start new threads at any
> time.
> >I believe you will find that your new mailing list rules will not
> resolve
> >the very concerns that inspired them.  I hope that I am wrong, but I
> have
> >been on lists where disruptors and empty contributions are ignored or
> >shunned, and the substantive debate proceeds without any
> acknowledgement of
> >their existence,
> >
> True, but again only in theory, unfortunately.

  No I am afraid it is in practice and also well documented.  Nice
try at spin here Roberto.  But I am glad to say it is not well received.

> I am purposedly using a free-service E-Mail account for the messages
> associated to this list. This is not uncommon, from what I see from the
> addresses of the subscribers.

  No it is not uncommon, and that is just fine.  I use one as well.

> I access this E-Mail account strictly via Internet. This is less common
> in the industrialized world, but is the standard in the reality of the
> less developed (telecom-wise) areas, where people browse their E-Mail
> from Internet-Cafes.

  Internet-Cafes represent a very small number of users, and is therefore
hardly a justification for what you espouse here.

> Under these circumstances (I am talking about the Internet Cafe),
> private filtering is difficult, if not impossible, while the choice of
> subscribing to a monitored rather than an unmonitored list is possible.
> Under these circumstances, the simple visualization of the inbox list
> takes minutes, not to speak about action on a single message.
> I owe the people that are operating under these conditions priority in
> my considerations over the matter of principle of the subscription to
> one or the other list.

  They do not deserve such a priority as their number is very tiny.

> I am only asking three months time before issuing the final judgement,
> that I will accept whatever it is.
> Regards, and thanks.
> Roberto

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

NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html