Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

[ken stubbs <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

here ! here!

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> perhaps more significant business.
>
> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it a
> responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing thin,
> and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard as
> "non-productive" communications.
>
> Peter de Blanc
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org] On Behalf Of Thomas
> Roessler
> Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:58 AM
> To: DannyYounger@cs.com
> Cc: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair
>
> On 2001-07-08 22:03:42 -0400, DannyYounger@cs.com wrote:
>
> >I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list
> >in the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to
> >the main GA list by 62 individuals.  Six people accounted for half
> >of all the posts.
>
> [...]
>
> >Let us consider what our list would have been like if these
> >individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have
> >received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average
> >of one post per individual about every 3-4 days).
>
> >I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly
> >might best be served by further restricting the number of
> >allowable daily postings in order to cut down on the "noise".
> >Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list would be sensible,
> >if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.
>
> As you demonstrated yourself, it would be entirely sufficient to
> enforce the existing rules - at least in the case of regular
> offenses.  Just imagine what would happen if the list monitors were
> doing their work: The six people you mentioned (with the possible
> exception of Patrick) would be "on holidays", and the list traffic
> would be considerably reduced.
>
> So there is really no actual need to further restrict the number of
> postings per day - IF the current rules are actually applied.
>
> Note, BTW, that those who suggest "fuzzy" posting quotas (it's just
> one over the 5 posts per day) are basically just trying to push the
> posting quota up.
>
> Saying that minor violations (one or two postings ov er the quota)
> don't lead to sanctions is just equivalent to lifting the quota to 6
> or 7 postings per day.
>
> --
> Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
> --
> 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
>
> --
> 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

--
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