Re: [ga] Mailing List Abuse

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Dear Eric
>
> I truly believe that everybody on these lists understand the way they have
> been set up.  As I have said to you and others, anyone can write to me
> directly and I will reply to them in a fair and even-handed manner.

  Yes it seems that there have been some list games going on.  Nothing
unusual there from this forum.  It's pretty much old hat really...  I see
that it is happening again.  However, Patrick I submit that I believe that
it is YOU that is one of the main culprits.  I could be wrong of course,
but the evidence is pretty compelling that I am correct.  This very post
and comment in particular is just one of several tell tale indicators, for
instance...

  I also received several Private E-Mails from you Patrick in the
recent past, as you well know that would also indicate that you are
the major perpetrator of these recent ML games.  This is of course
not to mention that you have been purged from RIchard Sexton's
servers for E-Mail that has come to light recently and been propagated
quite widely of late.  I could go on and on here of course, but I think
the point is clear.

  Now let me make just one more point or disclosure here.  Yesterday
I posted 7 posts to the GA list.  That is two over the illegitimate imposed
limit of 5.  I apologize to anyone to which the extra 2 posts as a matter
of overage, might have unduly imposed upon....  Thank you for your
indulgence and consideration...

>
>
> First, the rules.  These were introduced after months of debate.  They are
> much simpler that those on any other moderated list that I have seen.  In
> brief postings should be relevant to the subject of the list, of reasonable
> length and free of personal attacks.  There is also a no cross-posting rule.
> This is all summarised as "respect for other participants".
>
> Second, the main lists.  Originally there was a GA list.  The debate agreeed
> that this should be moderated but that the GA-FULL list would carry posts
> disallowed from GA.  There is thus no censorship as anyone can subscribe to
> GA-FULL if they want to do that.
>
> It seems that most people prefer to subscribe to GA rather than GA-FULL.  I
> think the recent NC announcement indicated that only 10 people were
> subscribed to GA-FULL rather than GA.  All postings, except GA-ABUSE,
> indicate the name of the list in the footer.
>
> Third, the sublists.  Following the cancellation of all working group lists
> by the NC, Danny and I both shared the view that there was a need for a
> replacement facility.  A number of new dedicated mailing lists were set up.
> For example, one was for RULES, another for UDRP and a third for ROOTS.
> These are not mainstream GA issues.
>
> The intention of these lists is not censorship.  Anyone can join whatever
> they want.  It is a pity that people don't formulate a working group with a
> proper agenda.  I have made such suggestions several times.  Danny and I
> have both called for sub-Chairs for this purpose.
>
> Fourth, list relationships.  It was never intended that people abuse the
> system of working groups by cross-posting from one list to another.  Each
> working group list was clearly defined for those interested in the topic.
> Some, such as yourself, cross-post quite regularly and should not be
> surprised that the automated "no cross posting" rule kicks into effect.
>
> It was also considered unwise to create a separate GA-FULL for each working
> group list.  This would have immediately doubled the number of lists and
> created severe confusion.  I cannot think of a worse solution than having a
> GA-RULES with a GA-RULES-FULL etc.
>
> Fifth, suspensions.  At present neither you or Jeff Williams are suspended.
> You can both make up to five posts on each list.  Danny has pointed that out
> several times.  That is a lot of posting.  Anyone suspended can also post
> whatever they like to GA-FULL.
>
> This system favours people who are suspended.  It is not unfair, quite the
> contrary.  Those who do not wish to be suspended merely need to comply with
> the simple rules outlined above.  Many on the list make personal attacks and
> escape very lightly.  The GA-ABUSE list is only for the purpose of making
> complaints not for general correspondence.
>
> Sixth, and finally.  I would ask that all subscribers respect the rights of
> other
> members.  This can be ensured by taking care that each member, with the
> possible exception of the person being directly addressed, receives ONE and
> only ONE copy of each posting.  Other courtesies are equally obvious.
>
> Many subscribers would have received multiple copies of the following
> posting.  That was quite unnecessary.  I note that you did not copy me
> personally but I still received FOUR copies, one from GA, one from GA-ABUSE,
> one from GA-RULES and one from GA-UDRP (addressed as GA-TM).
>
> All of these messages had a 13.9 KB attachment easily referenced at the URL:
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/msg00383.html
>
> Had you sent futher copies to GA-ICANN etc. it would have been possible for
> a subscriber to have received up to TEN sepate copies of the same posting.
> In contrast my reply is going to the GA only with an extra copy to you.
>
> I would suggest that any further discussion be performed on GA-RULES as this
> was set up for the very purpose of keeping such procedural issues away from
> the main GA list.  Whether calculated or not, your postings are not very
> fair.
>
> Please do not be surprised when methods are implemented to prevent any such
> abuse in future.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
> To: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>; <ga@dnso.org>; [ga-abuse]
> <ga-abuse@dnso.org>; babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>; icann board
> address <icann-board@icann.org>; <brianappleby@netscape.net>; Bret Fausett
> <baf@fausett.com>; Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>; Don Evans
> <DEvans@doc.gov>; <editor@icbtollfree.com>; <ga-tm@dnso.org>; JandL
> <jandl@jandl.com>; Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; Jefsey Morfin
> <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>; Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
> School of Law <froomkin@law.miami.edu>; NameCritic <watch-dog@inreach.com>;
> Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Roberto GA <ga_list@hotmail.com>;
> Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:16 AM
> Subject: [ga-udrp] [Fwd: [ga-roots] Alternate Roots Issues Paper for
> Discussion]
>
> Sincerely
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
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