[ga] Mailing List Abuse

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Dear Eric

I truly believe that everybody on these lists understand the way they have
been set up.  As I have said to you and others, anyone can write to me
directly and I will reply to them in a fair and even-handed manner.

First, the rules.  These were introduced after months of debate.  They are
much simpler that those on any other moderated list that I have seen.  In
brief postings should be relevant to the subject of the list, of reasonable
length and free of personal attacks.  There is also a no cross-posting rule.
This is all summarised as "respect for other participants".

Second, the main lists.  Originally there was a GA list.  The debate agreeed
that this should be moderated but that the GA-FULL list would carry posts
disallowed from GA.  There is thus no censorship as anyone can subscribe to
GA-FULL if they want to do that.

It seems that most people prefer to subscribe to GA rather than GA-FULL.  I
think the recent NC announcement indicated that only 10 people were
subscribed to GA-FULL rather than GA.  All postings, except GA-ABUSE,
indicate the name of the list in the footer.

Third, the sublists.  Following the cancellation of all working group lists
by the NC, Danny and I both shared the view that there was a need for a
replacement facility.  A number of new dedicated mailing lists were set up.
For example, one was for RULES, another for UDRP and a third for ROOTS.
These are not mainstream GA issues.

The intention of these lists is not censorship.  Anyone can join whatever
they want.  It is a pity that people don't formulate a working group with a
proper agenda.  I have made such suggestions several times.  Danny and I
have both called for sub-Chairs for this purpose.

Fourth, list relationships.  It was never intended that people abuse the
system of working groups by cross-posting from one list to another.  Each
working group list was clearly defined for those interested in the topic.
Some, such as yourself, cross-post quite regularly and should not be
surprised that the automated "no cross posting" rule kicks into effect.

It was also considered unwise to create a separate GA-FULL for each working
group list.  This would have immediately doubled the number of lists and
created severe confusion.  I cannot think of a worse solution than having a
GA-RULES with a GA-RULES-FULL etc.

Fifth, suspensions.  At present neither you or Jeff Williams are suspended.
You can both make up to five posts on each list.  Danny has pointed that out
several times.  That is a lot of posting.  Anyone suspended can also post
whatever they like to GA-FULL.

This system favours people who are suspended.  It is not unfair, quite the
contrary.  Those who do not wish to be suspended merely need to comply with
the simple rules outlined above.  Many on the list make personal attacks and
escape very lightly.  The GA-ABUSE list is only for the purpose of making
complaints not for general correspondence.

Sixth, and finally.  I would ask that all subscribers respect the rights of
other
members.  This can be ensured by taking care that each member, with the
possible exception of the person being directly addressed, receives ONE and
only ONE copy of each posting.  Other courtesies are equally obvious.

Many subscribers would have received multiple copies of the following
posting.  That was quite unnecessary.  I note that you did not copy me
personally but I still received FOUR copies, one from GA, one from GA-ABUSE,
one from GA-RULES and one from GA-UDRP (addressed as GA-TM).

All of these messages had a 13.9 KB attachment easily referenced at the URL:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-roots/Arc00/msg00383.html

Had you sent futher copies to GA-ICANN etc. it would have been possible for
a subscriber to have received up to TEN sepate copies of the same posting.
In contrast my reply is going to the GA only with an extra copy to you.

I would suggest that any further discussion be performed on GA-RULES as this
was set up for the very purpose of keeping such procedural issues away from
the main GA list.  Whether calculated or not, your postings are not very
fair.

Please do not be surprised when methods are implemented to prevent any such
abuse in future.

----- Original Message -----
From: Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>
To: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>; <ga@dnso.org>; [ga-abuse]
<ga-abuse@dnso.org>; babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>; icann board
address <icann-board@icann.org>; <brianappleby@netscape.net>; Bret Fausett
<baf@fausett.com>; Bruce James <bmj@keyname.net>; Don Evans
<DEvans@doc.gov>; <editor@icbtollfree.com>; <ga-tm@dnso.org>; JandL
<jandl@jandl.com>; Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>; Jefsey Morfin
<jefsey@wanadoo.fr>; Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>; Michael Froomkin - U.Miami
School of Law <froomkin@law.miami.edu>; NameCritic <watch-dog@inreach.com>;
Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@aim.be>; Roberto GA <ga_list@hotmail.com>;
Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>; sotiris <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>
Sent: Sunday, May 27, 2001 6:16 AM
Subject: [ga-udrp] [Fwd: [ga-roots] Alternate Roots Issues Paper for
Discussion]

Sincerely
Patrick Corliss



--
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