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

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

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.  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?"

Enforcement of the rules would resolve that.  Wild attacks puts one on
GA-FULL.

> 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.   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).

You can't defeat a system to which you have no access. The "right of free
speech," which in any event is inapplicable here, never has included the
requirement that anyone is obliged to read or listen, and even if it were,
that's what GA-FULL is for.  See my post of yesterday on the issue of
shutting down GA-FULL.

The term "sub-list" needs to be eliminated; I think it was Patrick who
recently laid out the distinction. Also, it's sometimes amazing how
people will let a little squibble on a screen do their thinking for them:
there's a ga with no dash and then a bunch that have ga-whatever,
so somehow that's a main list and then sublists.  I suggest that what
we now call ga be renamed ga-gen (i.e., "general") or some such
thing where it will at least fall alphabetically into a pile and not stand
out so much.

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

Anonymous attacks are the very worst kind, and present another real
problem: how would you know who to kick off?

> 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?

It's called "openness." Anyone not willing to stand behind a statement has
no right to be heard.

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

Could not disagree more. Secret ballots, yes -- that's the tradition (at least
here in the U.S. and lots of other places).

I close with a passing thought on "openness." I don't need to remind you that
the internal workings of ICANN are about as open as is my access to my
wife's check book. The "openness" of all these lists, on the other hand,
gives the upper ICANN hierarchy all it needs to know about what all of us
are up to.  Ironic, eh?

         Bill Lovell

http://cerebalaw.com/biog.htm


--
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