[ga] Proposal: Multiple Competing User-Created Lists: The Way Forward after the "Election"

[George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hello,

Given the events of the past weeks, and prior months (and perhaps even
longer), I'd like to propose a way forward that might make most people
happy.

I think the key to going forward is to introduce some competition, and
to let natural forces lead to a natural equilibrium in terms of the
mailing lists. Right now, there's been more emphasis on "trying to
control the list" or "trying to get fancy titles" or "talking about
admin matters" rather than talking about DNS policies, and
communicating between parties interested in DNS/ICANN issues. After
stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, and how other groups
have dealt with similar "struggles" (for lack of a better word), here's
what I propose to manage the "GA Mailing List Problems":

1) Closing of the current GA Mailing List.

2) Allow *anyone* to create 1 public mailing list, with its own rules
(or lack of rules).

3) The names of these public mailing lists would all be numeric, e.g.
"Public Discussion Mailing List #100591", and the numbers that are
assigned will be randomized (e.g. random 6-digit numbers) so that
there's no "vanity" suggesting one list has any "standing" in ICANN
relative to another list. No list, of course, will be called the "GA
List" or "General Assembly" or any other moniker that suggests it
anything other than a public mailing list. Thus, there is no possible
confusion that it is officially endorsed by ICANN, the GNSO, or that it
speaks for
anyone official.

4) New lists would be announced on the "Announce" list (that I believe
most people are subscribed to).

5) People can subscribe to more than one list (but can only create 1).
Cross-posting would be disabled (or discouraged).

6) The creator of the list can appoint their own list monitors, decide
whether to moderate things, decide who to ban, etc.

7) List archives would be public, i.e. these are public mailing lists.
(if there's valuable discussion on one list, it can be linked to from
another list, without cross-posting)

8) Transfer of the mailing list control can be made from one person to
another.

9) List emails would have a footer with a link to a page with ALL the
other lists, as well as unsubscribe info.

10) The "list of lists" would show how to subscribe, the link to its
archives, the number of subscribers, and the name of the person who
created it (or who it was transferred to).

(that's a rough outline, that can be polished with people's input)

Essentially, the idea behind such a system would be to have
"competition" in the lists, so that there is no "lock-in effect" as
there currently is with the GA, and no benefit to a "takeover" of the
list by malevolent entities. If a list became useless, or there was a
disagreement, folks could create their own list if they were not able
to resolve their differences, forking the membership of the existing
mailing list (just like when folks disagree on Linux distributions,
and so you have Red Hat, Ubuntu, Debian, etc.).

Thus, I for example could create a list that is only open to
constituency members and ICANN staff, etc., and not to some of the less
desirable people (kooks). Those less desirable people could make their
own list, if they want. Ultimately, the force of competition, Darwinism
so to speak, would drive the lists to become much better than they are
at present. Even personal enemies would co-exist on a list, because
suppose I were to ban "Draco Malfoy"  unjustly, there would be such an
uproar that folks would leave "my" list, and join a newly
created one that he started. Any "dictator" would have to be
"benevolent" otherwise their list would quickly be unsubscribed from in
favour of a competing list. People would gravitate to the list(s) that
were most productive, and there'd be no need to fight over who is in
"control", because that "control" is essentially worthless.

I believe this is also in the spirit of "self-management" that the GNSO
council sought. No more fighting over fake titles or rules. Anyone who
is unhappy or unable to resolve difference would be able to make their
own list. Indeed, that existence of an easily created alternative list
will naturally work to create an environment where people will have to
be more understanding and get along.

I welcome your feedback. From a technical standpoint, I think the
overhead would be comparable to the existing GA Mailing List, and
probably less (i.e. less fighting). 

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/