Re: Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@dninet.net>]

i agree here. have a public archive of the moderated list and an unfiltered
unmoderated list

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto.gaetano@voila.fr>
Cc: <karl@CaveBear.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 2:04 AM
Subject: Re: Re: [ga] Proposal for mailing list policy


> [excuse the telegraphic style - I am away from home on a slow link and
> editing is hard.]
>
> On the subject of an archive:
>
> Take me as an example.  I would probably read the filtered list routinely.
> But if someone tells me that there is censorship going on, I would look at
> the archive of the unfiltered list.  It is unreasonable to expect me to
> archive all that traffic just in case of need.  It is also not productive
> to make me rely on a private archive that might be incomplete or
> manipulated.  I need the official one to make a judgment.  And I need it
> online before the people who control it edit it to remove what I want to
> see (if they are dumb enough to do political censorship, they would be
> capable of editing the master list if I had to give them notice of my
> interest by asking to see it; or they might not give it to me.  And why
> should I have to give them a reason for why I want to see it?  What
> point does that serve?). Thus, a secret archived list is not a good
> idea.  Anyway, what exactly is the objection to having the list archived
> and public?  What was the Canadians' mysterious reason?  What harm can it
> do?
>
>
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > >I am not comfortable with the idea that the official record is
> > censored.
> > >The official record includes all the crazies.  That's life.  If a nut
> > >submits something to a government department they don't get to throw it
> >
> > >away; they file it.  Plus without an archive, forming an opinion about
> > >past censorship becomes nearly impossible.
> > >
> >
> >
> > First of all, I understand that "to file a record", and to be able to
> > produce it in case of need to interested parties, does not necessarly
> > mean "to publish it online in real time".
>
> This is an internet body, not a government department.  It serves a
> worldwide audience.
>
> >
> > Secondly, according to my information, after having gone through an
> > experience similar to the one we are witnessing now, the Canadian
> > Government took a different approach about the filing system ;>).
> >
> >
>
> I am afraid the reference here is lost on me.
> >
> > First of all, everybody is welcome to keep track of the traffic and to
> > build his/her own archive. BTW, do we have volounteers?
> > Secondly, the question is not "to archive" or "not to archive": of
> > course the records will be kept by DNSO Listadmin (at least to have
> > legal evidence in the not unlikely case of court trial). The question is
> >  whether to provide real-time, on-line access to the integral set of
> > messages (BTW, becoming liable in some jurisdictions of the material
> > contained therein).
>
> This is a red herring.  Store the materials here in the US and there will
> be no liability unless notified about conpryight issues, in which case
> there is no liability if you remove the stuff at once.  Same with libel.
>
>
> > This, as I said, counterbalanced by no advantage, as any subscriber
>
>
> the advantages are legion.  Among them
> * one central place for pepole to look for the stuff
> * no need to rely on volunteers wh may drop the ball
> * As you say, it's being kept anyway so the cost of making itopen is near
> zero
> * avoids accusations that you have something to hide
>
>
> I agree that some comments are quite offensive -- the recent comment
> slurring americans, and lawyers, and cat owners comes to mind -- but there
> are no legal issues here.  And if you read the unfiltered list, you take
> your chances, just as you do walking down the street.
>
> > could decide to set up its archive, and in case of discrepancy on
> > different online archives, we have the "official" DNSO archive (offline)
> >  for reference.
>
> Who is "we"?  How do "we" get access to the secret archive.  I think this
> is just asking for unneeded trouble.
>
> I don't feel very "we" in all this...
> >
> > >> Since the uncensored list must be the official list, it must be
> > >> archived in total.
> > >
> > >
> > >This is, I repeat, essential.
> > >
> >
> > See above. It will be archived, no doubt.
> >
>
> Then it is quite selfish not to share it.  There is as far as I can see NO
> downside to this.
>
> [...]
> --
>
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                         -->It's warm here.<--
>
>