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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 05:43:07PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
[...]
> Let us say tht there is an issue and the Names Council has requested the GA
> to discuss it and put together a recommendation by a certain date..  We
> many never get to that point, but let's say that the disruptors throw in so
> many twists and turns that meaningful discourse is interrupted and the
> deadline cannot be met.  The record of the failure of the process would be
> the untouched mailing list, not the moderated one.

?? Your example doesn't make sense.  The moderated list would not be
fazed by the noise and disruption, and the success or failure of the
process would be dependent on the issues at hand, not on the disruptors. 
It would in fact be the "vent" list that would give a distorted view of
the work that took place, because on the "vent" list it isn't possible
to tell who is paying attention to who. 

[...]

> My definition represents that of an historical archivist.  I have
> professional experience in this area, so this is not a "metaphysical
> position".  There's the true, untouched mailing list, which should be
> ga@dnso.org, and there's the smaller version, based on what a gatekeeper
> deems relevant and other criteria.  A moderated list may not reveal, say,
> that one person contributes 65% of the traffic, that five people contribute
> 90% of all the traffic.  So a moderated list presents a different skew.

Irrelevant to the issue.

I have in the past participated in lists that were about 90% noise,
where people made heavy use of filters, and the noise gave a completely
and utterly distorted view of the actual effective content of the list.  
A historian that looked at the noise would in fact be explicating noise.  

> Keep your finger on the delete button and voila, you have the moderated
> list you want.

No, I don't.  I still see a list distracted by a large volume of noise.  
Moreover, there is a subtle but very real problem with individual 
filtering:  every person gets a different view of what happens.  If, on 
the other hand, you have a list with rules such that pretty much 
everyone who belongs can afford to run without filters, then everyone 
is getting a much more consistent view of the effective proceedings.

In any case, your historical research requirement is completely met by
ftp access to a compressed tar file.  Historical research does *not*
require that the garbage be posted in a public web archive and labeled
as the "true" or the "official" archive. 

And in fact, your historical research argument is specious.  You are
advocating inclusion of the noise in the dynamics of the debate, but
disguising it as a concern for historical fidelity. 

Labeling the noise as the "official" archive, as you insist, has more
effects than just making the stuff available.  It colors the tone of
news articles, seriously impacts first impressions of policymakers, and
negatively impacts the debate. 

I understand why you and others who are antagonistic to ICANN would want
the noise, the foul language, and so on prominently displayed -- it fits
well with your interest in demonstrating that ICANN can't work, and with
your desire to show ICANN in as bad a light as possible. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain