Re: [ga] Comments about censorship and other stuff... dont read it! (lets talk about WG-C proposals!)

[Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 13:12 26.11.99 -0500, Javier Rodriguez wrote:

>a) The "censorship" stuff is not only related to the Dennis problem, there
>      is the Baptista case, there is Jeff, Dave, there was some accusations
>      about more than 14 people not allowed to post, a peruvian fellow
>     and good friend included in that list, there is some people that say that
>     more than 400 members of their association are not allowed to subscribe
>     to the list and... yes! you can put anything on this tale of 
> censorship.  I am
>     not saying what is true or what is false, this is just a try to 
> "resume" the
>      state of the "censorship" accusations (sp!).

My first attempt to subscribe to the GA failed (no response).
The second succeeded.
I subscribe to the "never attribute to malice what can be attributed to 
incompetence" school - although I'm not sure what the worhty volunteers for 
the dnso.org listmasters would prefer to be accused of :-)'
But I'm pretty sure they had technical problems at one time.


>c) I correct myself... there is a plain rule "to respect member of the 
>list"... the
>     thing that is not elaborated is WHO is in charge of saying what is 
> correct
>     and what is not correct.  My point is that someday a person or group of
>     persons in charge of the DNSO GA mailing list can say "hey guy! you
>     can not say that Mr. Perfect, our dear Chairman of the Board of Directors
>     has made this or that against the ICANN bylaws... this is a lack of the
>     respect that you must give him... so, you are banned, you are out of the
>     GA list, you are out as a member of the GA... "

Here we get definitional problems.
If the GA is the collection of all people involved in all the 
constituencies, a person cannot be removed from the GA unless his 
constituency kicks him out.

If the GA is an open assembly (I don't think it is), it cannot kick people 
out and claim to remain open.

However, I don't think members need to retain the right to speak on the GA 
list in order to continue to be members; "the speaker is not recognized" is 
a well known means of riot control.
But such decisions need to be done in public.

>You can see that the problem is the lack of a bodie, or the lack of rules to
>ban people, to rule WHO and WHEN someone can say "bye bye!" to
>the GA members.  It is something that needs to be done.   Thats all.

The GA needs a chair.

                      Harald

--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no