[ga] Re: Excess Posting Limits

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Alternate Chair wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 18:59:34 -0600, Earl Heather wrote:
> just wondering if I might proxy my 5 posts (sorry 4 remaining posts)
> to Mr. Lovell,who is much more coherent than myself today
> regarding concerns about process with this motion - I'm real curious
> what he will say next regarding this rush to vote ;>)

On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 20:15:08 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:

> There's no rule that I know of that allows this, but I believe it should
> work just like the law does in general: if there is no rule to cover
> doing some thing, then one creates the rule by doing the thing. I am
> therefore soaking up one of Earl's allotted posts, for which I thank
> him kindly.

Hi Earl & William

I am sorry that you haven't understood the environment under which the GA
is operating.  Let me say it again.  There are those within the GA who take
every opportunity to divert the debate by insisting on formal adherence to
the rules, procedure etc.  These state that there is a daily limit of five
posts per person.  That, of course, should be handled by the list software.

But so far as I can see, there is no rule that precludes proxy posts. So
I first suggest checking to see whether or not in fact I exceeded 5
posts.
Secondly, it should indeed be handled by the list software -- if in
fact that
exceeded 5 on ga, it would automatically have been dumped, and I have
fully supported that move. Thirdly, this procedure provides a mechanism
for resolving a real problem raised by one member: a single post brings
back 5 or 6 responses, to all of which the original poster is then
precluded
from responding publicly on the same list unless he/she waits until
the
next day, and then the next, etc., which on some issues is like not
responding
at all.

This was a "stalking horse," to test the waters on such a rule. It is a way
to get something done, and decided upon. The proxy vote mechanism
renders unnecessary the devious use of the "posted on behalf of" bit:
someone emails privately to some one else and asks, "would you post
this on my behalf; I've exceeded my limit for the day" -- a mechanism
that I've seen used more than once.  If that procedure is permitted, it
would seem preferable to do the same honestly and openly by proxy,
rather than by subterfuge.

> It is possible, but by no means guaranteed, that
> "official" posts from the
> Chair or Alternate Chair may escape this sanction.  This post
> is one such
> example as I am now over my own daily limit.
I thought that that matter had been resolved weeks ago -- the Chair and
Alternate Chair are not supposed to have limits on official business,
and
if that has not been written into the rules and instructions to monitors
by
now, it should be.
> Persons who wish to complain may do so through [ga-abuse]
> mailing list.
> The list monitors must then adjudicate the complaints.  Failure
> to do do
> then opens up another round of debate on the [ga] list.
And I say again, why is all this not on ga-rules? The Chair or Alternate
Chair, it seems to me, have the authority to move it there. Indeed,
at
one point I was personally asked by the Alternate Chair to move a
topic out of ga (where it had been started by someone other than me)
and put it into ga-rules, which I did.  Would the Alternate Chair
like
me to do that again? I would be pleased to oblige.
>  Any attempt to
> shift the debate to [ga-rules] creates further opportunities to debate
> the
> "legitimacy" of the sublists.
Or to enforce,  this present subject matter NOT being germane to any
legitimate, general policy of the GA with respect to its charter pertaining
to domain names, you and I should now both be subject to sanctions
for posting off-topic emails on ga. (In case no one noticed, that process
was the subject of what I posted.)

And so it goes.  Nothing substantive gets achieved.

You may, of course, choose to ignore the current rules but that is simply
feeding those who would undermine the process.  There will also be further
debate that the list monitors should not be allowed to have *discretion*.

I am not "ignoring" the current rules, I am testing their bounds. We attorneys
have been known to do things like that. When I buy a used car, I also
kick
the tires.

For what it is worth, I thought William's further explanation (exceeding the
posting limit) was well worthwhile.  However, it would totally negate the
excess posting limits should one person be allowed to make TEN postings
per day compared to everyone else's FIVE.

If ten, why not fifteen, twenty or more?

So that's an argument -- known as the reductio ad absurdum argument
--
that presents another side (and its expression reinforces my notion
that this
should be taking place on ga-rules rather than ga). To generate such
is why
"stalking horses" such as my post are typically used.  It is unfortunate
that
this is occurring on the ga list, however: the whole topic of posting
has been
such an endless source of fascination that discussions like this do
indeed
detract from legitimate ga business. Proxy posts would indeed have
their
down side -- we'd get this clique or that pouring comments through
some
single, selected "post-person" -- to which, of course, one equally
proper
response might be, "so what?"  (Even as to the content of what
I posted,
repeated herein, I've seen no response from anyone, especially including
the
Alternate Chair, but instead the cudgels beating upon me come out,
with
no attention whatever to the issue raised.  That's life on ga.)
> That's why we MUST afford legitimacy to at least
> the [ga-rules] sublist.
> I wish you could see that and simply assist in making that a reality.
If my insisting that sanctions be imposed on those who post to "wrong"
lists
does not support the use of sublists, I don't know what would!

And I add that I understand all too well the environment in which the GA
is working.  In several respects, that environment needs cleaning up, and
my post has the explicit purpose of jogging some movement towards that
end.

In a way, I am the sacrificial lamb, and all and sundry may now beat upon
my head and shoulders as they will (assuming -- haha! -- that I was found
to have exceeded the 5/day rule in any event).  But I've been yelled at by
experts, and have a very thick hide. If it takes that to pin down these
matters, well, small sacrifice, methinks. You'll note that I specifically
invited the monitors to check me out, so if anyone wants to run a check on
how many posts I actually put up, I'd be glad to hear the result!

Bill Lovell
--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm