[ga-rules] Structuring the Mailing Lists

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

From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:07:25 +0200
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Observations


Dear Danny, Dear Jeff,
Beyond this there is a conception developped by Joop that DNSO/GA Members
are representatives (virtually elected or selected by 5 +/- people and the
Chair is the representative of the GA, etc...

Thank you Dassa and Jeff to contradict that.

The so called governance (again and again, the French origin of the word
helps understanding its meaning of 'net keeping') is a *service* to the
community.

As long as you want Danny to represent the GA instead of serving it as a
catalyst, to command it down instead of helping us up, we will oppose
badly. As soon as you thinks in terms of bottom-up instead of top-down [or
top-up, you being the GA talking with the stars} how clumsy you might be,
you will get my *full* and happy support.

I am unfortunate in having a clear agenda for a free GA-FULL to survive, so
I hate being obliged to voice this out again and again (anyone having a
better suggestion is welcome). How happy would I be if Danny you went by
normal usages and we could cooperate.... You know that, so please do not
pretend otherwise.

I just wander who are the off-list people advising Danny on us?
Who is actually directing this GA?

- questions by private mails reported publicly and anonymously
- external directives
- proposition to use anonymous mails
- closing of the GA-FULL
- critics of the voting attitude
- calls for public disclosure of private votes
- disclosure of personal motives

Is that our idea of our GA?

I observe there is only one person here not signing
his mails. A trait of character I presume?

Jefsey

PS. for the fun of it. Let assume we have anonymous mails. How will Harald
document the more than 5 mails a day sentences? Disclose the name? How will
I be sure decision is not political? Or is that the intent?


On 16:04 29/05/01, Jeff Williams said:
>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@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


--
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