RE: [ga] List Rules - Some Ideas

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Debbie,
 
I, personally, do not see a problem with abandoning the post limit. I
understand that the GA has some specifics as regards natural
self-regulation of its members that should perhaps be responsively
moderated. But in case of real participation of our members on issues in
a more organized way this might be necessary. Then I see a problem with
distinguishing between relevant and non-relevant content. I think in
most cases a warning should suffice but in general we could be able to
put up with non-relevant or numerous posts as long as they are not
occurring too often or are not flooding the space. Anyway, we can report
it at any time it becomes apparent.
 
Dominik

________________________________

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Debbie Garside
Sent: Tuesday, April 01, 2008 5:13 PM
To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules - Some Ideas


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