Re: [ga] Comments from Pawlo

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all,

  The ORSC list was in part, practically defunct mainly because the
List rules DID NOT work adequately, contrary to your assertion
here.  See relevant archives in their entirety for further evidence.

  In order for any rule dealing with disruptive and abusive posting
one must definitively define both Abusive and Disruptive.  That is a
difficult task as it applies to the context of this or any mailing list.
You cannot have rules to deal with these concerns without
everyone agreeing and knowing what for the purposes of this list
is Disruptive and Abusive.  The current proposed rules that
Harald proposed do not provide such definitions for these terms
in the context of this list....

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> On Wed, 19 Jan 2000, Mikael Pawlo wrote:
>
> >
> > Comments to suggestion posted at:
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg00447.html
> >
> > >Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
> >
> > Define this.
>
> > >Not using offensive language
> >
> > Define this.
>
> Use common sense. You'll find that courts often apply a "reasonable
> person" litmus test("would a resonable person do/believe/say X")  to
> situations. Attempting to define a comprehensive definition of every
> possible permutation of insult, slur, slander, or combination of words
> that consitute an "attack" would be quite impossible, consuming from now
> until eternity and would still be incomplete. Situations need to be taken
> on a case-by-case basis, which is why I agree with you and believe that
> there should at all times be a three person committee(to avoid "ties")
> rather than a single "Sergent-at-Arms."
>
> I also am strongly in favor of such a committee being elected by the
> GA, and not *chosen* by any individual, the Names Council, etc. if the GA
> is truly supposed to be governed in a "bottom-up" fashion, a concept which
> to date has been shamefully absent in all aspects of ICANN.
>
> I have seen a similar Sergeant-at-arms approach work with great success on
> the ORSC mailing list. Conversations were civil, the infrequent violations
> were addressed in an open, responsible, and equitable fashion.
>
> > Maybe the SAA should have a more free role from the GA Chair, hence maybe
> > the SAA should be choosen by the list subscribers.
>
> Completely agreed.
>
> > I suggest there be only one (1) sanction, that is suspension. If the
> > sanction is needed suspension is a fair punishment, monitoring
> > (censorship) does not make sense.
>
> If the behaviour which resulted in the suspension is continued on the
> unfiltered list it makes complete sense to consider continued poor
> behaviour. What I would suggest rather than "monitoring" which can be a
> laborious and time-consuming process for what will I believe be
> volunteers is to post a message near the end of the term of an individuals
> censure, stating that they will be readmitted to the list, and ask that
> anyone with objections contact the SAA(s) privately with evidence
> of specific posts/actions occuring after the beginning of the censure
> period warranting ongoing/further sanctions. The object of the complaint
> should of course be allowed to see the contents of any charges or
> objections to re-admittance leveled against them.
>
> > >Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2
> > >weeks), and are announced on the mailing list.
> >
> > Sanction time should be more clearly defined. I say 7 days for first-time
> > offenders and 14 days if the same individual repeat an offense.
>
> So every 14 days, the few disruptive individuals present get to hop on,
> be disruptive and insulting, with the opportunity to repeat such
> actions in another 14 days in perpetuity? No thanks.
>
> I'd suggest an exponential suspension period, starting with 2
> days(2,4,16,32....) This, combined with some sort of member
> verification&anti-spoofing will quickly rid the list of the
> purposefully disruptive individuals while offering ample opportunity to
> those who may choose to behave when it becomes exponentially "expensive"
> in terms of suspension length to do so. I like this approach as no one is
> ever "permanently" banned from the lists, yet it ensures that list members
> not need be subjected to the activities of the pathologically disruptive
> and insulting on a consistent and regular basis. Plus calculating
> exponents is much more fun.. ;-)
>
> If this is seen as too difficult to keep track of my second choice would
> be 7 days, 14 days, one month, and finally permanent suspension.
> In no case should an individual exhibiting a repeated pattern of
> disruptive behaviour be allowed access to the filtered list on a regularly
> re-occurring basis.
>
> The exception to either tiered suspension period should come only as
> a result of individual(s) purposefully engaging in Denial-of-Service
> type attacks in which case I believe a permanent ban to be completely
> appropriate due to the premeditated and destructive nature of such
> attacks. As with insults and vulgarity, this merely requires one use
> a little common sense in determining what constitutes a denial-of-service
> attack.
>
> > >The period is decided by the sergeant-at-arms.
> >
> > No, the period is fixed as suggested above.
>
> Agreed. Arbitrary behaviour should never be permissable, the sole
> exception being in cases where an individuals behaviour jepordizes the
> functionality of the GA lists/servers itself as in the case of
> Denial-of-Service attacks against the mail server, etc.
>
> > >The action of the sergeant-at-arms may be appealed to the GA Chair.
> > No. Three SAAs are choosen in majority election by the list members. If
> > the member who's been punished by a SAA wants to appeal, he'll make his
> > appeal to the SAA appeal board. The SAA appeal board will consist of the
> > two SAAs who did not make the decision and of one randomly choosen list
> > member. The SAA appeal board will make a final decision on the matter.
>
> I'd take a somewhat different approach, requiring a vote among all three
> SAA's in order to effect a suspension. I don't believe a single person
> should have the authority to make the decision to suspend, and guarantee
> you that your proposal would result in every suspension being immediately
> appealed. What I'd suggest as an equitable answer to balancing the need to
> offer an appeals process vs. people making unwarranted appeals, is by
> simply requiring that anyone wishing to appeal garner a modicum of support
> for such an appeal from the membership, say 5 or 10 members, and pending
> such support that a vote of the membership be taken. This approach serves
> three purposes:
>
>    a) Helps to diminish the effects of a potentially arbitrary or biased
>       decision by a single SAA.
>
>    b) Prevents baseless appeals from individuals simply attempting to
>       drag the process out or with the purpose of increasing
>       administrative "costs" tangible or intangible in handling such
>       an appeal.
>
>    c) Anyone actually suspended unreasonably should easily be able
>       to receive sufficient support from list members for an appeal to the
>       membership.
>
> In the context of the GA, short of hiring arbitrators/non-involved parties to
> perform this function, the most equitable appeals mechanism is one where
> as many individuals comprising the membership as feasibly possible are
> offered the ability to make the final decision rather than a
> selected/elected party(ies.)
>
> While I disagree strongly with certain provisions, I appreciate Harald's
> intent and effort in putting together a "straw-man" proposal allowing
> everyone to have a single document to attempt to reach consensus around
> and improve upon.
>
> Thanks Harald.
>
> /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
>                                Patrick Greenwell
>                        Earth is a single point of failure.
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208