RE: [ga] List Rules - Some Ideas

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Dominik
 
I have to say, this (the GA) is the first forum I have ever known to impose
a limit on postings and I, personally, would much rather everyone had the
opportunity of free speech whenever they desire it.  However, if you look
back in the archives you will see that there are a few people who find it
necessary to go over the '5 posts a day' limit on a regular basis (I have in
the past posted over the limit myself - prior to the list rules being
adopted of course).  In reviewing these mails I am not sure that they are
always terribly constructive or conducive to a professional list being taken
seriously by those we would hope to inform, impress and advise.  Therefore,
I feel that an increase in wholesale posting limits at this time may detract
from any work we wish to conduct rather than enhance it.  
 
That said, in the light of the important discussions currently being held,
if a few members were to propose the change from limited to no limit or even
double limit on postings pertaining to a distinct subject line I would most
likely support it - although members should be warned that wanton off topic
or inflammatory emails would still incur sanctions as per our rules.  
 
Most people can manage to stop themselves clicking the send and receive
button 20 times a day but there are those who cannot and this is why we need
rules - these few people spoil it for the majority but, nevertheless,
deserve the right of free speech; albeit somewhat limited in quantity.
 
I hope this answers your question.  Please feel free to formulate a proposal
along these lines in order that members may have an opportunity to voice
their opinions on whether the current discussions necessitate an increase in
posting levels.
 
Best wishes
 
Debbie Garside
List Monitor
 
 
 



  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Dominik Filipp
Sent: 01 April 2008 13:29
To: Jeffrey A. Williams; Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Some Ideas


Well, I understand the existing limit might be an obstacle once we decide to
work on issues intensively.
 
Eric, Debbie, would it be a problem to increase the daily post limit or to
eliminate it altogether when we reach a consensus on this here?
 
Dominik


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey A. Williams
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 1:54 PM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Some Ideas



Dominik and all,

I have no objections to your suggestions, only concerns as to with extremely
limited posting limits, how such can be achieved with any reasonable sense
of accuracy or completeness.  Unless or until that limiting censorship
factor is changed within the GA, most, if not all, meaningful and
comprehensive work is not feasable.  However as I have long ago now said, I
believe that this is what Debbie and Mr. Dierker intended, which hamstrings
the GA and as such, relegates it to near obscurity or irrelevance. Good
public discourse, like any other form of person to person or person to
public communication is never censored in such a way, not even C-Span does
such.  But the GA [ Eric and Debbie] does!  >:(

Thankfully none of our mailing lists have such draconian nonsensical
Censorship provisions, nor did the FCC impose such on P2P traffic when the
RIAA's complaint regarding such was strongly and unanomously denied. But the
GA does! >:(  Frankly such censorship reminds me of "Extrodinary Rendition",
you may not know what that is Dominik, but Mr. Dierker surely does.

So in summation and seemingly as usual, any of our members that engage in
Tasting activities, warehousing of domain Names, or Domain Name speculation
on a large scale, shall have their membership revoked until they have
renounced to ever engage in those activities via a signed and notarized
affidavit.  Same is true for Censorship [ other than self censorship],
infringing in any way of personal privacy, engaging in the trafficing of
child pornography on the Internet or elsewhere, engaging in cybersquatting,
typosquatting, phishing, IP address hijacking or other defined forms of
same, and/or any other forms of Internet scams.  Further, any or our members
that fail to report such activities to a proper legal authority shall also
have their membership revoked or temporary suspended pending further review.

I personally have a 0 ZERO tolorence policy for nonsense, and always have.
"Collective or selective censorship in any of it's ugly forms IS nonsense!"

Chief Justice US Supreme court, Jon Jay 1791

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827




-----Original Message----- 
From: Dominik Filipp 
Sent: Apr 1, 2008 2:15 AM 
To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" , Danny Younger , Hugh Dierker ,
debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Some Ideas 


Jeff and all,
 
I understand your point here. Four votes for the motion gained so far can
hardly be considered a GA support. But the motion is based on the public
voice expressing its desire to eliminate AGP as demonstrated in the last
GNSO survey and not on a majority of GA votes; so the power and the
legitimacy of the motion is derived from the results of official survey. For
me the GA, in its current status, is still a mailing list with all known
limitations.
 
However, it is a nice idea to get the GA community more operable. Regardless
of whether the results will be accepted by the staff or not. Simply to find
out whether the GA is a group of people not only bringing interesting and/or
valuable thoughts and ideas, but also a body capable of acting accordingly.
 
Our last attempt to build this up failed. Maybe we could give it another
chance and start with the domain tasting issue. I think, however, this
motion cannot be enforced by just establishing some organizational rules but
it should be a natural process of gradual acceptation of the potential power
of group of people with the same or similar attitudes and goals. That is, a
process accepted by the GA members themselves. I have no idea whether such a
support exists currently, and I do not insist on it. I am all for it but
cannot speak for anyone else.
 
I, therefore, would continue working on domain tasting here. Everyone
interested in it can join and work together. I have some ideas how to
improve the work; e.g. I would like to use a special notation in subject
clearly distinguishing issue-oriented contributions from other posts; some
examples
 
GA_ISSUE_0001: DOMAIN TASTING | Elimination of AGP - Pros And Cons Report
GA_ISSUE_0001: DOMAIN TASTING | Voting - Vote on Draft Report Ver. 1.1
GA_ISSUE_0001: DOMAIN TASTING - Final Report Ver. 1.1
 
or more generally
 
GA_ISSUE_<code>: <ISSUE_TITLE> [| <Category> [| <SubCategory>]... [-
<Description>]]
 
where pipe stands for category/subcategory delimiter and square brackets are
optional meta-terms (as usual).
 
Obviously, every opened issue should be 'owned' by a leading moderator who
defines the subject titles.
 
This could help try out the mechanism for the current ongoing issue and
we'll see how this might be working further. The details can be discussed
later or refined during real work on issues. I, personally, would not like
to be elaborating on this too much.
 
Any ideas or objections?
 
Dominik
 


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Jeffrey A. Williams
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 7:11 AM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules



Mr. Dierker and all,

  My position on the questionably ligitimate "List Rules" is well known and

remains unchanged for the reasons I have already stated clearly and

emphatically.  BTW, Mr. Dierker I trimmed you redundant CC's in accordance

with the questionably ligitimate "List Rules".  Please practice what

you preach, if you would be so kind.

 

  It seems very clear that Dominik's motion is resoundingly carried by

the majority of the actively participating GA members.  However as

the GA does not have any formal voting process that it should have

there will always be a question as to weather or not Dominiks motion

is the will of the GA members.  Here inlies, and has always been the

GA's biggest detrament and partly why as Ross indicated, the GA is

unfortunately largely discounted if not ignored.  A sad commentary indeed.




-----Original Message----- 
From: Hugh Dierker 
Sent: Mar 31, 2008 11:17 AM 
To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules 


The list has run along very smoothly for several months. The main reason is
voluntary compliance with the rules. Once this concept breaks down so does
the list. We are not talking about individual one time lapses. For constant
repeat violations we must stand strong and enforce the rules.
 
We are at a point for the first time in months, that the list is coalescing
into the form of producing a statement/motion. The AGP issue seems to have
come to a head and more formal resolution procedures may be appropriate. I
believe it is at a motion stage with 4 seconds. If the desire is to move
forward in a constructive effective matter, we should hear that from the
members.
 
Eric

Debbie Garside <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Please note that the list rules state no more than 5 postings within 24
hours.

A couple of people on this list seem to be going over the limit on a regular
basis.

This is a final friendly warning. Anyone going over the quota in future
will be suspended from the list for a minimum of 4 weeks according to our
list rules.

There are a number of contentious issues currently being discussed at the
moment and, as has already been voiced, I would like to see input from a
variety of members rather than just the same few.

Best regards


Debbie Garside
List Monitor

http://www.geolang.com









Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827