Re: [ga] Mailing List [un]Abuse

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Patrick, Eric, WXW and Danny.
I opposed a lot the artificiality and the autoritary way the sub-lists
have been set-up. I also opposed a lot to Patrick's behaviour and
Danny's. But I also said that should Patrick and Danny try to make
it in a normal way, I (and I hoped) others will help.

Nothing is perfect and there is still a very long way to go before
Danny and Patrick start thinking as common sense Chairs. But
I must acknowledge there are some changes.

After reading Patrick's mail could we agree on the following:

- Eric stops harassing Patrick with bad words (that does not
   prevent him using sophisticated words to tell him what he
   thinks: Eric as demonstrated humour enough for us all,
   including Patrick (who has some strange ideas but is a really
   nice chap), to enjoy it.

- Patrick does whatever he wants with the GA and his sub-GA
   lists provided he asks Elisabeth to forward to the GA-FULL
   everything from every GA main/sub list.

   Having subscribed initially to the GA-FULL to get everything,
   I feel cheated: there are many mails I do not get.

   We could agree that all the lists are filtered by convenience
   for the reader and that GA-FULL is also a convenience to the
   reader wanting to read everything without any filter.

   In practical terms the sub-list names are indicated in the
   mail Subject,  so as a reader of the GA-FULL I should be able
   to filter by myself whatever subject/person I want/don't want
   to read.

   This would not create any change in the number of lists.
   And yet sastisfy evey demand encountered so far in
   actually respecting the initial GA-FULL deal.

- Danny and Patrick accept not to post any sentence
   refering to a rule whatsoever, established by them,
   decided by them, proposed by them, voted by the
   GA, edicted by them or from the bylaws :-) without
   quoting the URL of that rule.

   The purpose of that is certainly to oblige them to have a
   better knowledge of their own ukazes and of the voted rules
   but also to decrease the feeling on the ML they write and
   rewrite the rules as it pleases them.

Would that seem reasonable to each of you?

Jefsey




On 07:17 27/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>Dear Eric
>
>I truly believe that everybody on these lists understand the way they have
>been set up.  As I have said to you and others, anyone can write to me
>directly and I will reply to them in a fair and even-handed manner.
>
>First, the rules.  These were introduced after months of debate.  They are
>much simpler that those on any other moderated list that I have seen.  In
>brief postings should be relevant to the subject of the list, of reasonable
>length and free of personal attacks.  There is also a no cross-posting rule.
>This is all summarised as "respect for other participants".
>
>Second, the main lists.  Originally there was a GA list.  The debate agreeed
>that this should be moderated but that the GA-FULL list would carry posts
>disallowed from GA.  There is thus no censorship as anyone can subscribe to
>GA-FULL if they want to do that.
>
>It seems that most people prefer to subscribe to GA rather than GA-FULL.  I
>think the recent NC announcement indicated that only 10 people were
>subscribed to GA-FULL rather than GA.  All postings, except GA-ABUSE,
>indicate the name of the list in the footer.
>
>Third, the sublists.  Following the cancellation of all working group lists
>by the NC, Danny and I both shared the view that there was a need for a
>replacement facility.  A number of new dedicated mailing lists were set up.
>For example, one was for RULES, another for UDRP and a third for ROOTS.
>These are not mainstream GA issues.
>
>The intention of these lists is not censorship.  Anyone can join whatever
>they want.  It is a pity that people don't formulate a working group with a
>proper agenda.  I have made such suggestions several times.  Danny and I
>have both called for sub-Chairs for this purpose.
>
>Fourth, list relationships.  It was never intended that people abuse the
>system of working groups by cross-posting from one list to another.  Each
>working group list was clearly defined for those interested in the topic.
>Some, such as yourself, cross-post quite regularly and should not be
>surprised that the automated "no cross posting" rule kicks into effect.
>
>It was also considered unwise to create a separate GA-FULL for each working
>group list.  This would have immediately doubled the number of lists and
>created severe confusion.  I cannot think of a worse solution than having a
>GA-RULES with a GA-RULES-FULL etc.
>
>Fifth, suspensions.  At present neither you or Jeff Williams are suspended.
>You can both make up to five posts on each list.  Danny has pointed that out
>several times.  That is a lot of posting.  Anyone suspended can also post
>whatever they like to GA-FULL.
>
>This system favours people who are suspended.  It is not unfair, quite the
>contrary.  Those who do not wish to be suspended merely need to comply with
>the simple rules outlined above.  Many on the list make personal attacks and
>escape very lightly.  The GA-ABUSE list is only for the purpose of making
>complaints not for general correspondence.
>
>Sixth, and finally.  I would ask that all subscribers respect the rights of
>other
>members.  This can be ensured by taking care that each member, with the
>possible exception of the person being directly addressed, receives ONE and
>only ONE copy of each posting.  Other courtesies are equally obvious.
>
>Many subscribers would have received multiple copies of the following
>posting.  That was quite unnecessary.  I note that you did not copy me
>personally but I still received FOUR copies, one from GA, one from GA-ABUSE,
>one from GA-RULES and one from GA-UDRP (addressed as GA-TM).
>
>All of these messages had a 13.9 KB attachment easily referenced at the URL:
>http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/msg00383.html
>
>Had you sent futher copies to GA-ICANN etc. it would have been possible for
>a subscriber to have received up to TEN sepate copies of the same posting.
>In contrast my reply is going to the GA only with an extra copy to you.
>
>I would suggest that any further discussion be performed on GA-RULES as this
>was set up for the very purpose of keeping such procedural issues away from
>the main GA list.  Whether calculated or not, your postings are not very
>fair.
>
>Please do not be surprised when methods are implemented to prevent any such
>abuse in future.
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
>To: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>; <ga@dnso.org>; [ga-abuse]
><ga-abuse@dnso.org>; babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>; icann board
>address <icann-board@icann.org>; <brianappleby@netscape.net>; Bret Fausett
><baf@fausett.com>; Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>; Don Evans
><DEvans@doc.gov>; <editor@icbtollfree.com>; <ga-tm@dnso.org>; JandL
><jandl@jandl.com>; Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; Jefsey Morfin
><jefsey@wanadoo.fr>; Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
>School of Law <froomkin@law.miami.edu>; NameCritic <watch-dog@inreach.com>;
>Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Roberto GA <ga_list@hotmail.com>;
>Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
>Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:16 AM
>Subject: [ga-udrp] [Fwd: [ga-roots] Alternate Roots Issues Paper for
>Discussion]
>
>Sincerely
>Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>--
>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

--
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