Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

I find that these rules are appropriate for a private list, perhaps a
private list that some GA members might like to form.  But I find
these rules to be inappropriate for an open discussion and decision
vehicle.

Nor do I agree with the implicit statement of this proposal that the GA is
simply a place of discussion.  As I see it, unless the GA very soon begins
to assert itself as a place where decisions are made and where such
decisions are at least co-equal to that of the NC, I don't see much
positive value in there being a GA.

Nor do I agree with the elevation of the "list maintainer" and
"sargeant-at-arms" to the status of overlords.


> RULES OF ORDER FOR THE MAILING LISTS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE DNSO
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Version 0.1 - for discussion on the GA list
 
> THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
  
> (a) The GA shall be an open forum for participation in the work of
> the DNSO, and open to all who are willing to contribute effort to the
> work of the DNSO. The participants in the GA should be individuals who
> have a knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas
> for which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
> contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO,
> including work item proposal and development, discussion of work
> items, draft document preparation, and participation in research and
> drafting committees and working groups.

There is no reason to limit the GA to people who "have a knowledge"
the "issues pertaining to the areas".  There are many who don't yet
understand the issues but who know that they are impacted by the
outcome.

Anyone who feels strongly enough about regulation of the DNS to send
in a subscribe message ought to be able to participate.

Nor do I agree with the formulation that requires GA people to be
available for assignment to work groups.  It is sufficient that a person
wishes to express an opinion.


> (d) The GA shall nominate, pursuant to procedures adopted by the NC
> and approved by the Board, persons to serve on the Board in those
> seats reserved for the DNSO.

The GA *must* have powers that least peer with those of the names
council.  As it currently stands, the GA is an utterly useless body
that serves no function except to provide a color of "openness" to the
arbitrary and self-serving actions of the NC.

> For purposes of its internal operation, the General Assembly maintains
> mailing lists. These are as follows:
 
> - announce@dnso.org for announcements from the DNSO
> - ga@dnso.org for discussion among GA members on GA business

The administrative operator of those lists should have no policy voice and
indeed should in no circumstances be making any statement not directly
related to the technical operation of the list.  If the operator wishes to
express opinions, the operator should do so as a normal, identified member
of the GA.

> Both lists are open for subscription by any E-mail address.

> Both lists are archived.

The archives should be preserved for many years.  The archives should
be accessible by any person, whether of the GA or not.

> The membership of the lists is not made public.

I don't agree with that.  I do believe that those who wish to do so should
be able to participate anonymously using some handle.  But the list of
names & handles should be available to all.

Having the list available allows the flexible formation of coalitions.

And people who use the list to reach out to attempt to form such
coalitions ought not to be considered engaging in spamming but, rather,
are to be considered making legitimate use of the list.
 
> The announce list is available for official pronouncements only.

"official"?  As Tarzan said to Jane: "Me just simple jungle guy, what
means this word 'official'?"

> The ga list is open for mail from any subscribed members, subject to
> constraints given below.
 
> The purpose of the GA list is to allow discussion between GA members
> on GA matters. It is not itself a decision-making body.

The GA *is* a decision making body.  It's just that so far, ICANN hasn't
recognized this.

If the GA has no decision power, we may as well all pack our bags and go
home and truely recognize that ICANN, in total, is the property of
corporations and large entities to the utter exclusion of small companies,
individuals and small groups.


> Note: Neither list claims to be an authoritiative listing of the
> members of the GA, but when a mail is sent to the announce list, it is
> considered to be published to the GA membership.

Sounds like a vehicle for Royal Decrees.

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> RIGHTS TO POST
> --------------

> - GA members who are members of the GA mailing list, posting in their own name,
>   who have posting rights in good standing

As I mentioned above, those who wish to use handles and not have their
real names used ought to be able to do so.  The condition being that a
real person not participate multiple times under multiple handles.

> - The staff of the DNSO list management

No. Except for technical statements regarding list operation (things
like server outages, follow-ups on lost mail, etc) those who manage
the technical facilities of the lists must make their opinions known
via the same means as normal people.


I don't agree with the entire "Sergeant-at-arms" concept.  If there is
someone who is to be sanctioned, then that should be the decision of
the entire GA, made openly and on a clearly stated question.

> - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that
> person not to be sent to the GA list.

And the first instant that such happens without the express consensus
of the GA, then I unsubscribe.

I will not abide by the appointment of our own jailor.

> ACCESS TO UNFILTERED LIST
> -------------------------
> There exists an open list that can be subscribed to: ga-unfiltered@dnso.org.

The official list of the GA must be totally uncensored.

Sensitive groups can establish their own e-mail exploders that filter out 
those they don't want to hear.  But those are not "official" lists.

> It will not be archved on the DNSO site; others may choose to
archive it if they feel like it.

Since the uncensored list must be the official list, it must be archived in total.

> The existence of this list will make it possible to have independent
> verification of what the filtering function does.

No "independent verification" is possible unless the list is fully and
completely archived.
 

		--karl--