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

["!Dr. Joe Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

You see Kent - like abe lincoln said - you can can fool some of the people
some of the time - but you can't fool them all - all of the time.

I forecast rocky waters and bumby shores soon.  Better warn el capitain.

Regards
Joe

On Tue, 18 Jan 2000, Kent Crispin wrote:

> 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
>