RE: [ga] @xxxxxxxxx

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@xxxxxxx>]

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 17:11:14 -0700, crispin@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >    4) I believe that you have seriously overstated the magnititude of
> >    the problem you have identified.  Any person who is a member of a
> >    list has complete access to all the addresses ever published; the
> >    primary purpose of the list archives is to provide a record of
> >    public discussion, not to provide a convenient directory for
> >    participants email addresses.
> >
> >    5) And there are essentially trivial workarounds for anyone
> who really
> >    feels that their address must be visible in the archives --
> they could
> >    simply use your trick, or give a URL.
> >
> >As in most things, there are tradeoffs.  In my opinion the tradeoffs in
> >this case come down very strongly on the side I have described.
>
> FWIW I totally agree with Kent on this issue.
>
> DPF
> --
> E-mail: david@xxxxxxxxxx
> ICQ:    29964527
> MSN:    dpf666@xxxxxxxxxxx

It could be argued that requiring disclosure of email addresses in a public
archive as a pre-requisite to posting anything at all is a
counter-productive barrier to participation, considering how quickly
pertinent email can become buried under spam. Therefore I agree with Kent
and David on this occasion also.

If you're concerned about the public not being able to contact the various
people who are appointed to the various official sub-committees and so on,
then I would support the argument that all those people ought to publish
their names and URL/ direct contact details on a GNSO webpage where such
committees are listed.

Joanna