[ga] Discussing "apples" and "oranges" [was "Will we chase rabbits or ideas?"]

[Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> ...Who wants to spend
> > their(our) time discussing whether particular
> > comments are out of order?  Isn't that where we are going?
>
> No...  We are discussing mailbomb attacks,

This is the "apple."  I absolutely agree--nay, insist--that ICANN take
swift and effective action against such conduct, both to punish the
immediate offender as well as deter others.

> deliberate and repeated attempts to "disturb the peace", and long
> established patterns of behavior.

Now, we are discussing "oranges."

> We are discussing behaviors that,
> in physical analogy, no physical forum on earth would -- or could --
> tolerate on a continuing basis.

The analogy is strained.  Discussion on this list is significantly
different from that at an ICANN board meeting.  We have a limited agenda
and function.  We have multiple and simultaneous speakers and threads.
The discussion has little boundary as regards duration.  People can come
and go as they wish, reading the items of interest to them at their own
convenience.  And, we can individually filter according to speaker,
subject, or words.

> ...there was in fact a deliberate attack, criminal in
> some jurisdictions, on the list...We are not just talking about "civil
> discourse", or what is or is not
> out of order.

As to this apple, we agree.

>
> > Only the minimum regulation
> > necessary to accomplish a clearly identified and proper objective is
> > allowed, especially in political contexts.
>
> You are confusing "Congress shall make no law" with "there shall be
> no regulation of any kind in any context whatsoever by anybody".
>

Actually, no confusion is demonstrated by my comment.  I  described the
policy to which any regulation must conform under U.S. law.  And, I have
suggested that the development and enforcement of a regulatory scheme will
have its own costs (or effects on our discussion).

> ...There are generic and informal "rules of order" for mailing
> lists; it would be nice if they were formalized, but in the meantime
> we can go with the informal ones.

I think you are now discussing "pears."  Again, the propriety of "informal
rules" is something upon which we agree.  "Netiquett" is important.
Frankly, I filter some people on this basis, alone.  But, these are
matters of personal discretion, both for the speakers and the audience.

> Morever, this list is not in the US.  It is run in France.

The list is not geographically limited.  Many of us are in the U.S.
Others are in Myanmar (sp?).  But, wherever we are, physically, we are
participating in a process intended to affect the management of our common
public network.  The location of the server or the administrator should
not result in a diminution of our rights to participate in this process to
the maximum feasible extent.  Rather, we must fashion our governance to
comply with the highest, not the lowest standards in that regard.

And, (my original point) we should not get into a situation where rabbits
divert our attention from the issues which brought us here in the first
place.