Re: [ga] Austerity measures

["Roberto Gaetano" <ga_list@hotmail.com>]

Vany,

I am specifically answering your post, but have also some general comments 
on the issue.

>To avoid submissions of non-members it just only takes that the mailing
>list is setted up to be closed.  If you want to avoid a known spammer to
>post (and because the list is closed, of course, it is a member of the
>list) it just take to add him to a list in Sendmail that deny access to
>such spammer.  But this is not a thing done by Elizabeth.  This has to be
>done by the technical staff of AFNIC!!!  The Technical staff of AFNIC is
>payed to dedicate part time job to DNSO (for me part time means four hours
>a day).


In fact, the list is open by design.
Post from non-members are accepted intentionally, to allow archiving of 
contribution from everybody.

>.........  The GA-FULL is
>unmoderated.  Then there's no excuse to close it!!!

Good. I sense consensus here.

>.....  But the issue here is that Elizabeth proposed to close te
>GA-FULL (unmoderated) and not the GA (moderated).   And I don't
>understand why she is monitoring an unmoderated list!

I believe this has been clarified already.
Elisabeth did not propose to close it down.
However, under French law the owner of a Web site is responsible for the 
material published on the Web site, and postings by third parties on a list 
whose archive is public are no exception.
In other words, if a message of pornographic or otherwise offensive or 
unlawful content is sent by a non-member to the GA, the DNSO will be 
responsible for its publication in the archives.
And those among you who were members in late 1999 may remember that this is 
more than an abstract possibility, and my personal opinion is that this can 
happen again any moment.
Hence the need to check.


This said, my general comment is that I do not share the general enthusiasm 
for the new "shoot-AFNIC" wave.
I agree that some of the figures and estimates, in particular about the time 
needed to run the mailing lists, need revision and adjustment, but let me 
note that:
1. the cost of running mailing lists is peanuts in the global DNSO budget, 
and therefore the correct answer to the question on whether mailing lists 
should be closed is that this is a red herring
2. some of the alternatives proposed, like run the MLs on free service 
providers are either not viable (trusted archive?), or would not solve the 
cost problem, if we agree that the cost is not the system or disk space, but 
the time for the monitoring
3. AFNIC has provided for quite a long time all services to the DNSO free of 
charge: it has started to charge because it has become obvious that 
otherwise it would have been taken for granted that they would have done 
everything for free forever
4. to move from a voluntaristic approach to a situation where we have a 
contract with a provider with an agreed level of service is something that 
*we* (DNSO) need, not AFNIC. To pay for it is just fair. Incidentally, about 
the comment of us being "stuck" with AFNIC until end of June (which is only 
six weeks away anyhow) is the fault of none else than *us* (the DNSO), as 
AFNIC has raised the problem of continuation of service in 2001 well in 
advance
5. if we are not happy about the price/performance of AFNIC, there's only 
one thing to do: pick another provider. To suggest AFNIC how they should run 
the business is either offensive or ridiculous, depending on whether the 
suggestions are taken seriously or not

Incidentally, if we pick a new provider, can we please be sensible to the 
geographical distribution issue? The "internationalism" of ICANN is already 
a joke, and the last thing that is needed is to make it even more risible by 
moving to the US one of the few things that is not already in there.

Best regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

--
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