[ga-rules] Re: [ga] Re: Observations

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

From: Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>
To: Danny Younger <webmaster@babybows.com>
Cc: <ga@dnso.org>; Ed Gerck <egerck@NMA.COM>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 07:04:33 -0700
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Observations


Danny and all assembly members,

Danny Younger wrote:

> Jeff Williams writes that as a result of "a vote on some "List Rules" that
> was of questionable legitimacy... the active participants has dropped off
> significantly as a result."
>
> I would disagree with this assessment.

  First of all you are quoting me our of context, Danny.  That's rude and
a mischaracterization of what I said.  Please discontinue this practice
as it seems purposefully misleading.   For those interested in my full
though
presented to which Danny is responding to here see the archived post
at: http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02192.html


>  In my conversations with others that
> do not participate on our list, the general sentiment seems to be, "Why
> should I expose myself to the vitriolic attacks that run rampant on the GA
> list?"

  Yes indeed this is yet another reason why some of this forums subscribers
do no choose to actively participate as well.  But it is only ONE of several
reasons, and from the number of posts on this forum, my staff has found
that it is not the major reason for lack of participation.  What I stated
in my COMPLETE original response at:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg02192.html was a much more
accurate and closely reviewed view.

>
>
> Part of the problem is that in knowing who is the author of any particular
> message, we have those among us who revel in the prospect of attacking the
> messenger.

  Indeed, and I suggested over a year ago now that the Headers of each
subscriber should be mask for this forum.  Ed Gerck, at one time had
a Forum discussing these issue set up in this manner.  I found it very
well run and did eliminate allot of the personal attacks.

>   Eliminating the list rules (as some would advocate), will not
> solve this problem; neither will more rigid rules or more rigorous
> enforcement (as those who have a predilection for such behavior will
> continue to find ways to defeat the system).

  I would say that those that are concerned about personal attacks can
ALSO deploy their own client based filters to eliminate such problems.

>
>
> Perhaps the solution lies in stripping the message header so that author's
> identity is not revealed.

  Yes a good idea and one that I suggested (See my comment above)
over a year ago.  Of course the usual anti-anonymous advocates
objected, and it died there and than.

> In this manner, ideas can only be attacked on the
> basis of "content" or "merit".    Of course, any author may choose to add
> his/her name to a message posted in the body of the text.
>
> Some will argue that as we are the representatives of the Internet
> Community, our names should be on record whenever we post a message.  If
> this were true, then equally I would expect to know how our
representatives
> voted on any particular issue.   As the latter is not currently true, why
> should the former be required?

  Which representatives are you referring to?  NC members, ICANN BoD
members or congress/Senate members.  I believe that in each case their
vote is known or available for public review.

>
>
> There is a value in having a mechanism that allows for anonymous postings.

  Yes there is.  And again already suggested and rejected.

>
>
> On the other hand, perhaps we should know how each individual votes on an
> issue, especially if only 91 of us are in fact representing the
29,000,000+
> registered domains.

  Why?

>  Perhaps our voting registry should be asking for more
> details with respect to affiliations; perhaps a declaration of interests
> would be in order?

  Again why?

>
>
> If in fact we decide that it is wise to note how any representative votes,
> perhaps our ballot rules should be changed to allow for the possibility of
> abstentions, as Joanna rightly noted.

  I agree with Joanna's suggestion.

>
>
> Also, if over 80% of those who cast their votes are not regular
participants
> on the GA list, perhaps we need to quickly get to work on defining our own
> internal procedures for bringing a motion to the floor so that the "silent
> majority" will have the opportunity to participate more often.

  Participation is a personal choice.  Those whom wish to will try to if
they
are not blocked or arbitrarily banned indefinitely as many or our [INEGroup]
members have been...

>   As each
> motion should be followed by a necessary span of time to allow for proper
> debate, perhaps a schedule could be devised to accommodate this process.
> Those of you interested in pursuing such issues are invited to take up
this
> discussion on the ga-rules list.

  Isn't this the ga-rules list?

>
>
> --
> 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-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html