Re: [ga] GA Rules don't go far enough

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 15-Feb-2000 Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 13:47 14.02.00 -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
>>I again renew my call that all members of the GA list must validate by some
>>form of identification, such as a govt. issued ID.
>>
>>It is way too easy for people with AOL accounts or any of the numerous free
>>email/ISP services to just create new/additional aliases.
>>
>>I am prepared to send in a copy of my state issued ID, and I see no reason 
>>why this should not be a requirement.  Many conferences require the same 
>>type of thing at check-in, so this would be no different.   Otherwise we 
>>will continue to be subjected to the PCCF's and INEGroup's numerous 
>>aliases and attempts to disrupt, and who knows who else who might be 
>>participating with the intent to disrupt.
> 
> I think this proposal warrants consideration for the debate on permanent 
> rules that we need to have before the end of April.
> The immediate objections I have to it are:
> 
> - Processing costs for sending, receiving, verifying and storing the
>    documentation. Someone has to cover this.
> - The fact that it is not useful against a disrupter who is willing to be
>    identified. So it can't be the only rule.

I agree completely.  It is strictly intended to prevent the constant recreation
of new personalities that then have to be challenged and investigated, and thus
keep this organization hog tired with challenges just to get rid of one or two
disruptors playing 5-10 different characters.  It permits the rules against
disruption to have some teeth, since they can't simply create a new alias in
which to circumvent them.  As to the costs, I think the main cost will be to
the participants.  I think there is another draw back you don't take account,
though, to be totally upfront about this myself.  That is that this may present
a barrier to participation by some in countries were getting notarized
documents may be expensive or nearly impossible.

However, I would say that in these situations, the Chair could be empowered to
grant an exception, with the proviso that the issue may be revisited if
necessary. 

As to the processing and other costs, perhaps its time for some of our
corporate participants to put their money where their fingers are and sponsor
something like this as a step forward for the DNSO.  
 
- --
William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
DSo Networks  http://dso.net/
Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192
GPG/PGP Key at http://dso.net/wwalsh.gpg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: DSo Networks

iD8DBQE4qSXb8zLmV94Pz+IRAk8YAKCY9EDBQZsvwTAOMYXuANMh17pEjgCg+2jS
85iL32AcuEWDCiyOW8Zl8yk=
=xzjw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html