Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

[Eric Dierker <eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Over a year ago some fine gentlemen wrote the following post;


"     To: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
     Subject: Re: [ga] Blockage/delay of postings
     From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
     Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 16:51:30 -0800 (PST)
     cc: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>, ga@dnso.org
     In-Reply-To:
<Pine.LNX.4.10.10001050821400.27564-100000@spitfire.law.miami.edu>
     Sender: owner-ga@dnso.org


I will wash my hands of the GA mailing list if it undergoes any filtering
whatsoever.

I'm sufficiently grown up to use the "d" key on things I find offensive.

I am not willing to engage in discussions that are censured.

                --karl--"

I guess folks like Harald, Danny, Patrick and Roberto really should decide what
is best for the rest of  us.  They should tell us where and when we should
speak and on what issues.  If you read the "wishy-washy" report regarding the
At-Large study you will find they are saying one thing and the GA is moving in
the opposite direction.  Censorship is what destroys the GA not free speech.
If you don't believe me ask Karl.

Sincerely,
Eric

Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jul 2001 13:12:26 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >      it seems there is general agreement with the spirit
> >        of Patrick's motion. Joanna Lana has raised concerns
> >        about the wording, but it seems nobody has argued
> >        that procedural issues /should/ be discussed on the
> >        GA main list instead of GA-rules.
> >        Why don't we simply agree to *follow* the rules until
> >        such time when we have the resources and time to vote
> >        on it and use the voting mechanism instead for those
> >        issues which need to be voted on *now*? (I assume we will
> >        not agree on a UDRP Task Force representative by debate...)
> >        So, if you agree, *DON'T* reply to this mail on the
> >        main GA list:
> >        [snip]
>
>          Since Alexander's call for quiet doesn't seem to have worked . . .
> I think the emphasis -- on all sides -- on taking this motion to a formal
> vote is misplaced.  We've so far managed to avoid a knock-down, drag-out
> debate on the structure and functioning of the ga (should it act like an
> IETF working group? like a national parliament?), but it seems to me that
> in general, it's the job of the Chair to determine when the group has
> reached rough consensus on a matter like this one, so that we can move
> on.  The choice of exactly how he makes the determination should be largely
> up to him (straw votes can be helpful sometimes, but other times
> not).  This motion has only been on the mailing list for a couple of days
> now, which is too soon to make a judgment of rough consensus. Once a week
> has gone by, though, if the "hum" remains as one-sided as it's been so far,
> I think it would be fully appropriate for Danny to conclude that the
> proposal is adopted by rough consensus.
>
> Jon
>
> --
> 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

--
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