Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules

[Dnsipv6@aol.com]

'Ellen and everybody else,

  Ellen Rony has nicely and in some good detail how and why these
proposed "Rules", which they really aren't should NOT be adopted.
I believe that Our spokesman Jeff Williams as well as a few others
have pointed all of these points the Ellen outlines here before regarding
these "Non-rules" for the DNSO GA.  I hope that every one will 
consider this with all due seriousness.

David "Dude" Jenson
INEGRoup-East Director

In a message dated 1/18/00 2:51:53 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
erony@marin.k12.ca.us writes:

<< >Enclosed please find my proposal for mailing list rules for the GA list,
 >and the suggested timeline for the further work on this proposal.
 >
 >It is now time for an opinion poll on the proposed ruleset. By the end of
 >the week, we hope that we can have a decision.
 
 Mr. Alvestrand:
 
 While mailing list rules may quell the disruptions of several participants,
 I would like to express my concerns about the Final draft (Version 0.2) and
 my reasons for voting against it.
 
 First, the call for a vote is contained in a message that does not even
 bear proper description in the subject header
 
 Second, we do not know what percentage of member votes should be considered
 a "consensus" that results in adoption of these rules. Should the
 prevailing recommendation be imposed on the entire membership if only a
 small percentage of GA members vote?
 
 Third, the Rights to Post are subjective as to content, cumbersome and
 vague;  they place sole discretion in the hands of a Sergeants at Arms, who
 may a) unilaterally impose posting limits; b) determine what constitutes
 decorum and relevant business of the GA, and c) moderate content.   These
 rights do not describe an "open forum".
 
 Fourth, under Technical Matters, addresses are removed from the mailing
 list if delivery of mail causes disruptive automatic behaviour (such as
 bounce messages sent to the mailing list, causing loops.  Routing problems
 happen due to no fault of the list members.  In the past year, my ISP
 upgraded hardware, encountered a MAE-WEST system failure in San Jose, and
 had a smurf attack, all of which caused routing problems and bounced
 messages for all the email accounts. Why should membership in the GA be put
 at risk when these situations occur?  If messages bounce, a first effort
 should be made to contact the GA member through another means.  In one of
 the situations described above, I was not aware messages were bouncing
 until I received a phone call.
 
 There are, however, two objective (not content-related) behaviors that
 should be explicitly prohibited:  mailing attachments without permission
 and  spoofing of email addresses.  A large, unsolicited attachment can
 effectively shut down email access. That has happened to me on several
 occasions, and I think it should be a courtesy to ask before documents or
 images are sent.
 
 I would hope that a technical means could be found for identifying those
 who spoof email messages.  I feel the requirement for proof of identity if
 "the identity behind some email address set is challenged," is open to
 abuse.  Other mechanisms for dealing with disruptive participation should
 be explored.  For example, if a certain threshhold of complaints about a
 member's list participation is reached,the member's rights to post could be
 revoked for a set period.  In such cases, wouldn't certified identity be
 immaterial?  The sanctions suggested in the draft are 2 weeks for a first
 offense, 4 weeks for a second, 8 weeks for a third, but the decision is
 left to the Sergeant at Arms. Sanctions should be pre-determined by the GA
 members andimposed in consistent manner.
 
 Finally, and most disturbing, I feel the Rights to Post represent the
 camel's nose under the mailing rules tent, with the following declaration:
 
    It [the mailing list] is not itself a decision-making body.
 
 By declaring that the mailing list cannot be used as a decision-making
 body, you have removed any meaningful  voice that its collective members
 may have.  In fact, with that requirement in place, the GA cannot even
 nominate persons to serve on the Board in those seats reserved for the
 DNSO.   This represents a fundamental change in policy, and it is improper
 to sneak it into a casual draft on Rights to Post.
 
 Sometimes the proposed cure is more dangerous than the cold itself.  Rights
 to Post should focus on behavior, not content, since the latter makes it
 too easy to err to the side of censorship.  I prefer to route around the
 damage caused by disruptors by using the Delete key.  Admittedly, this is a
 nuisance.   I have learned never, ever, to respond to the disruptors, and
 my email life has been much more pleasant since establishing that personal
 policy.
 
 ............................................................................
 Ellen Rony                         ____             The Domain Name Handbook
 Co-author             ^..^     )6     http://www.domainhandbook.com
 +1  415.435.5010              (oo) -^--
 erony@marin.k12.ca.us
                                    W   W
       DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
     1999 Cyberserk Awards: http://www.domainhandbook.com/awards99.html
 ............................................................................
  >>