Re: [ga] Majordomo 'who' command

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

>> I think the value of knowing who is participating in the General Assembly
>> outweighs any damage.
> 
> Could you be more precise about what you see the value to be?

Let me box myself into a corner and restate the question as one of what
value I see in knowing who is lurking on the list, since the identity of
active participants is evident from the archives.

Before the command was disabled, I sent several 'who' queries to the list at
various times, and was able to follow the growth of the GA population, note
that members of some U.S. government agencies were subscribed, no one from
the ICANN Board or staff was subscribed, and many NC members were not
subscribed. I was able to note that members of the B&C and IPC
constituencies appeared underrepresented on the GA list. I was able to note
that, from the e-mail addresses, persons from outside the U.S. and Europe
were underrepresented. I was able to note that some people who are quite
active on other lists do not post here. I was able to see that some people
who are quite active in ICANN generally do not post here.

All of this gave me some idea of what the GA was. I think the information
gave me a clearer sense of the GA's strengths, weaknesses and potentials. I
know that we get periodic reports from the Secretariat containing some
aggregated statistics on membership, but I don't find those nearly as
helpful.

In the event that the GA ever decides to hold a vote or poll on something,
having access to the list of members, and their dates of subscription, would
be valuable for understanding the results. (For example, did some members
join simply to vote on something and then drop off?)

And I don't share the belief that the information enables spam, spoofing, or
other list abuses. As recent events illustrate, those things are easy to
accomplish with the 'who' command disabled.

       -- Bret