Re: [ga] "Moderating" the GA list.
I think you actually supported what I said.
Rules made by the members of the list are fine. Most all lists have
them. You and I may not agree what is considered Spam, if left to our
individual discretion, for instance.
However, I feel it inappropriate to target an individual's posts and
censor posts based upon one's own individual rules or unfettered
discretion. For instance, TR said he deleted messages because he
considered them idle chit-chat. Do the current rules say that the
Chair may delete a message he considers worthless? I may have liked to
have read it, for instance. Do the rules also say that the Chair may
target certain individuals (not the list as a whole, mind you) for
monitoring and censorship? That was the gist of TR's post and
Let me put it another way and I don't mean this to be disparaging to
anyone - it's just an example of what I mean: If the Republican party
controlled what was printed in all the newspapers, at their sole
discretion, it is rather doubtful that a democrat would ever be
The recently posted blueprint for reform document suggests to me that
the upper crust wants to significantly circumscribe the General
Assembly, in which case it appears that this list will no longer be
governed by the rules it has adopted.
The following is an excerpt from "ICANN: A Blueprint for Reform" by
the Committee on ICANN Evolution and Reform, which was posted on 6/20/02.
"The GNSO GA exists for the exchange of information and ideas, the
discussion of particular issues, and as a resource for the creation
– under the direction of the GNSO Council – of working groups,
drafting committees, and task forces. The GNSO GA is not a forum
for making decisions or recommendations, or taking formal
As such, the GNSO GA should take no votes, although working groups
under the direction of the GNSO Council can provide advice as a
group. To encourage informed discussion free from personal attacks
and undue disruption, the GNSO GA shall only support moderated
electronic discussion lists and forums (in which all interested
individuals and groups can participate). Those interested in
participating in unmoderated lists can do so in other fora, not
under the auspices of the GNSO GA."
I am not for the type of censorship suggested in the foregoing and by
TR's recent post. A freedom lost or taken away is usually gone
forever. Self governance, though, through our own rules is fine.
Sunday, June 23, 2002, 10:00:11 AM, William X Walsh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
WXW> Sunday, June 23, 2002, 7:19:28 AM, Don Brown wrote:
>> definition. In that case, and in all cases, I think it better for the
>> list members to decide the course of action.
WXW> Dan, this doesn't work in practice. It effectively means that
WXW> inappropriate acts go unpunished, especially on a forum like this
WXW> where there are a large number of members antagonistic to even the
WXW> idea of ICANN, enough to help block any action against any disrupter.
WXW> I know you weren't here a few years back when the current GA rules
WXW> were originally put in place, so you aren't familiar with the
WXW> circumstances that led to them being put in place, but let me assure
WXW> you, it was some of the most disgusting and inappropriate behavior
WXW> I've seen on what is supposed to be a list of professionals.
WXW> And the number of people who opposed any action being taken at all was
WXW> surprising to me, as were the names of some of those people, including
WXW> the founder of ICANNWATCH.com.
Don Brown - Dallas, Texas USA Internet Concepts, Inc.
PGP Key ID: 04C99A55 (972) 788-2364 Fax: (972) 788-5049
Providing Internet Solutions Worldwide - An eDataWeb Affiliate
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html