[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: [ga] [Admin] Removal of posting rights
Dori Kornfeld wrote:
>Regardless of the content of messages and whether some messages are
more
>"appropriate" than others, I think the GA is losing sight of its
mission by
>engaging in censorship.
I probably miss your point.
Are you saying that GA is "losing sight of its mission" by trying to
react to gratuitous libel and slander, and lack of civil discourse?
I think that GA would be even more "losing sight of its mission" by
allowing this kind of accusations, or the publication of messages of
pornographic contents, or the forging of E-Mail, or all other amenities,
without reaction.
I confess I do not understand the disclaim "Regardless of the content of
messages and whether some messages are more "appropriate" than others".
This is exactly the point. The sanction is applied "precisely" because
of the contents of the messages. Do you think that this attitude of
moving the focus of the debate from DNS-related argumentation to
personal insults is more in line with the mission of the GA than the
attempt to limit these insults?
This reminds me the story of the lawyer defending a serial killer by
asserting that "if we make abstraction from the murders, the defendant
is a nice person and not a danger for the society".
I am personally inclined to give to the authors of these postings the
importance they deserve (=zero), but I cannot ignore the sentiments of
people like Jonathan Cohen (or Elisabeth Porteneuve, that had also heavy
personal attacks in the past).
> The GA has already lost many valuable members and
>will no doubt lose more as the arguments continue.
In fact, a lot of people had already left the GA in the times when we
(Chair & AltChair) have been at the window, looking at the events
without taking responsability for the management of the civil discourse
rules.
The (regrettable and regretted) loss of people following the adoption of
the current rules has been largely offset numerically by new
subscriptions (including returns of former members who had left because
of our inaction).
> ICANN, in theory, is
>supposed to be an open process and the GA a forum in which interest
parties
>and individuals may deliberate.
IMHO, "open forum" is not synonimous of "wild west", and "democracy" is
not a synonim of "anarchy".
To allow the Wild West rule to govern the GA is, still IMHO, worse than
take sanctions.
In this respect, may I suggest to read the valuable work of the Berkman
Center - see http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/projects/deliberation/ -
reference already posted by Diane Cabell to this list.
I guess that the Berkman Center will welcome comments, BTW.
> Perhaps a better method of "regulating the
>noise" would be to send out notices that the GA list monitor suggests
that
>subscribers make individual filters for particular people. At least
then
>the GA members would be able to control their own content, and the GA
could
>become a more credible and legitimate forum for open communication.
>
GA members are *already* able to control the content. They have freedom
of choice between subscription to the unabridged version of the GA
postings, or to the "list with rules".
As I commented to the NC in the open meeting in Cairo, the fact that
only 3 (three) individuals chose to enjoy the traffic on the list in its
integral version clearly indicates that the vast majority does not
think that the sanctions applied are liberticide.
Please note that I am not claiming that the application of these
sanctions and rules are "perfect". What I am claiming is that they are
better than to assist without doing anything to the progressive
deterioration of the debate and to the multiplication of the insults and
attacks "ad personam", that already caused the death of other mailing
lists.
Best regards
Roberto
--
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