[ga-full] Re: [ga] Message from the Chair - List Rules - Roberto taking improper liberties!

[Bob Davis <bob.davis@netzero.net>]

James and all DNSO'ers,

  I would have to agree based on my observations of Robertos
list activities.

James Touton wrote:

> Joe and all assembly members Remaining,
>
>   Roberto likes to speak for others, even though he knows it is
> not desired by them for him to do so.  It is part of his skewed
> personality I suppose...
>
> !Dr. Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Ellen.
> > >
> > > Sorry to reply this late, but your message has been buried in hundreds
> > > of private messages by Joe Baptista, and I did not read it until some
> > > cleanup has been done.
> >
> > I object to you using my name for damage control.
> >
> > Regards
> > Joe Baptista
> >
> > >
> > > Please see my comments in the text.
> > >
> > >
> > > >Hi, Roberto:
> > > >
> > > >Thank you for copying me on your note to Karl.  It is clear that you
> > > feel
> > > >some anguish at the recent events with the GA mailing list rules and
> > > our
> > > >subsequent unsubscriptions.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Valuable people, whatever their opinion on the issues, is a scarce
> > > resource these days.
> > > I hate to see you (Ellen), Karl, and Dan go due to the application of
> > > monitoring rules, as much as I hated to see other people fleeing the
> > > list in the past due to the lack of monitoring rules.
> > >
> > > My only hope is that we can bring this matter to a vote, and that either
> > >  group will accept the result, and live with the situation.
> > >
> > >
> > > >> Because I believe, and here comes the
> > > >>disagreement, that at a certain point you have to draw the line
> > > between
> > > >>the expression of alternative positions on issues at hand, and
> > > >>expression of nothing
> > > >
> > > >Taken to its extremes, a proposal that holds at its core a prohibition
> > > >against posting an "expression of nothing" might disallow the posting
> > > of a
> > > >joke, of ISOC minutes, of a new book on the market that is only
> > > >tangentially related to the subject at hand, of illness in the family
> > > that
> > > >prevents timely response, or a rant of an opposing point of view.  I
> > > >believe you can make rules as to behavior (no crossposting, no email
> > > >spoofing) but rules as to expression are a slippery slope that can
> > > slide
> > > >subtly into censorship.  Here's a clue:  if it is difficult to define
> > > the
> > > >criteria of what constitutes an "expression of nothing", then you
> > > cannot
> > > >make such rules.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What I was trying to say is that nothing that could have some influence
> > > on the scope of the list has been "censored". But, of course, if you
> > > look at things from the strict "question of principle", you are right.
> > >
> > > >Two lists just provide a cludgely workaround. It's difficult to see
> > > what
> > > >that accomplishes, except to rebut complaints of censorship, never mind
> > >
> > > >that the full list is rea-only.
> > > >
> > > >You fail to address why individual filters aren't sufficient to manage
> > > the
> > > >concern about "expression of nothing".   You could, for example, impose
> > >  a
> > > >five message per day rule.  That would raise hackles from some, but it
> > > >wouldn't be enough reason to unsubscribe from a list because it would
> > > apply
> > > >to all of us equally and objectively.
> > > >
> > > >You could also impose rules that bounce any crossposted messages and
> > > that
> > > >unsubscribe people who have spoofed mailbox addresses.  That is a
> > > >legitimate approach to a clear breaches of netiquette.  Multiple
> > > identities
> > > >is more difficult to identify and thus, to work into your mailing list
> > > >rules.  I know of a lady who uses pseudo names on the Internet because
> > > she
> > > >wants to keep her identity secret from a known harasser.  Another who
> > > is
> > > >working on litigation for a client and doesn't want the defendant to
> > > pursue
> > > >her.
> > > >
> > > >>Do you *really* think that the best way to increase the power of the
> > > GA
> > > >>is to quit the boat now?
> > > >
> > > >Do you really think that the best way to increase the power of the GA
> > > is to
> > > >muzzle free expression? That is, in essence, what your rules have
> > > >accomplished.
> > >
> > >
> > > If "free expression" is the proposal of different ideas and different
> > > POV on the issues at hand, the answer is "no".
> > > If "free expression" is libel and slander, than, "yes", I believe that
> > > the reduction thereof will greatly increase the power of the GA.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >If the GA group remained on task, people would ignore the banter of
> > > those
> > > >who do not contribute to informative discussion.  Listmembers are free
> > > to
> > > >ignore those who contribute nothing and to start new threads at any
> > > time.
> > > >I believe you will find that your new mailing list rules will not
> > > resolve
> > > >the very concerns that inspired them.  I hope that I am wrong, but I
> > > have
> > > >been on lists where disruptors and empty contributions are ignored or
> > > >shunned, and the substantive debate proceeds without any
> > > acknowledgement of
> > > >their existence,
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > True, but again only in theory, unfortunately.
> > >
> > > I am purposedly using a free-service E-Mail account for the messages
> > > associated to this list. This is not uncommon, from what I see from the
> > > addresses of the subscribers.
> > > I access this E-Mail account strictly via Internet. This is less common
> > > in the industrialized world, but is the standard in the reality of the
> > > less developed (telecom-wise) areas, where people browse their E-Mail
> > > from Internet-Cafes.
> > >
> > > Under these circumstances (I am talking about the Internet Cafe),
> > > private filtering is difficult, if not impossible, while the choice of
> > > subscribing to a monitored rather than an unmonitored list is possible.
> > > Under these circumstances, the simple visualization of the inbox list
> > > takes minutes, not to speak about action on a single message.
> > >
> > > I owe the people that are operating under these conditions priority in
> > > my considerations over the matter of principle of the subscription to
> > > one or the other list.
> > > I am only asking three months time before issuing the final judgement,
> > > that I will accept whatever it is.
> > >
> > > Regards, and thanks.
> > > Roberto
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> James Touton
> Legal and Policy Advisory Council,
> INEGRoup (Stakeholder)
>
> __________________________________________
> NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
> Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
> http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Bob Davis
INEGRoup-West Director

__________________________________________
NetZero - Defenders of the Free World
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download/index.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html