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

[Ellen Rony <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>]

On 1/18/00, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

>I have found your posting very valuable, but based on an assumption that
> is different from the one I make. Let me detail the difference in our
>two approaches, before briefly going over some key points of your post.
>
>You seem to consider "GA-list"="GA-Membership", and therefore as a
>consequence "vote on the GA-list"="membership vote".
>
>I consider, OTOH, the GA-list a tool for communication, and the GA-
>Membership something that has still to be defined.


Mr. Gaetano:  Au contraire.  At the Names Council meeting on June 25, 1999,
the GA list was defined as the General Assembly of the DNSO.  See
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19990625.NCsj-admin.html

"It was then decided to take decisions on Amadeušs proposal first as it
concerns the GA:

    1.It should be announced that the GA exists and is recognised according
to the bylaws (unanimously accepted)
    2.the discuss@dnso.org list is regarded to be the GA of the DNSO
(unanimously accepted) "


>IMHO, we can only speak of Membership when a "contract" exist between
>the individual (member) and the body, by which there is at least:
>- clear identification of the individual beyond reasonable doubt;
>- a well-defined system of benefit-duties that distinguishes the member
>>from the non-member.
>None of the above conditions currently exist on the GA-list: therefore
>it cannot be considered a proper membership body.

Yet the Names Council *unamiously* accepted on June 25, 1999 that the GA
existed and the mailing list (now ga@dnso.org but previously
discuss@dnso.org) comprised the General Assembly.  So you need to take up
your arguments with the Names Council, not me.  I am just restating the
public record as I know it, although things are so convoluted that
subsequent administrative meetings may have altered the decision noted
above.  Have they?


>Harald called this an "opinion poll" (BTW, I concur with this definition
>, as the conditions for running a proper vote do not exist for the time
>being), you consider it a "vote", hence the difference of opinions.
>
 Call it a poll or a vote, the bottom line is that list subscribers will be
held to the results, so our difference of opinions and semantics are
immaterial.


>Correct. The "open forum" is the "ga-unfiltered@dnso.org" that everybody
> can choose to join. Those who prefer a monitored environment, OTOH, may
> choose to subscribe to the "ga@dnso.org".

There is a subtle bias in the nomenclature suggested here.  The official
archive is the unfiltered one, and it should appear at ga@dnso.org.
For those who prefer a monitored environment, it could appear at
"ga-filtered@dnso.org".


>Whoever finds that the "filters" are too restrictive, may always go to
>the other list. Freedom of choice is, IMHO, better than imposing on
>everybody a one-size-fits-all model of unfiltered mailing list.

I have no objection to two lists or three (a digest version perhaps), but
the basic unmonitored list is the true record, and it should be posted at
"ga@dnso.org"


>This said, I am claiming that the GA-mailing list (or any loosely-
>managed mailing list) can not be a proper decision-making body, because
>of the inherent lack of control of the identity and qualification of the
> voters, lack of control on multiple ballots, and so on.

This discussion should focus solely on the RIGHTS TO POST not on whether or
not the GA is a decision-making body.  I object to using this mailing list
rules opinion poll to extend the discussion to a policy decision regarding
the rights inherent in GA membership.  You've got apples and pianos here.

............................................................................
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
............................................................................