[wg-c] Pleading on the "two-post" rule

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. My email posting today entitled "DNSO WG-C summary
statistics" was intended to provide a factual basis for
this pleading concerning what has apparently been
surfaced as the "two-post" rule.  It should be regarded
as an annex to this pleading.

2. There is no apparent notice of this rule anywhere;
and indeed the DNSO website clearly states that any
person can post responses in a group without
limitations.  See http://www.dnso.org/listsdnso.html

3. The rule is alleged to be contained in an adopted
DNSO WG-D  report and approved for implementation by the
Names Council,  although because of its unavailability
it's not clear what it  says.  Indeed, the website still
indicates the report is "TBD." The existence of the rule
was casually mentioned in the course of WG-C discussions
on 9 October.

4. The purported rule allegedly restricts participants
to no more than two email messages per day - although
it's not clear what's meant by a participant, or a day
(local vs. CET).  It's apparently applied to each
group's email list - although this is unclear.


COMMENT

5. ICANN and its subsidiary bodies have had a short but
infamous history of effecting vague, arbitrary,
capricious, and discriminatory decisions as to
formation, structure, procedural rules, and substantive
policies.  This latest one falls in the category of
procedural rules for what are intended to be the
continuing substantive policy making processes relating
to domain names.  Therefore, it's not a trivial matter.

6. It's clear from the factual history of the most
contentious of the DNSO working groups - WG-C - that
there is no apparent basis for any kind of rule limiting
postings.  Indeed, if anything the working group has
been a model for substantive collaboration among diverse
parties of interest involving complex and controversial
issues.

7. Such a rule is essentially unknown in any kind of
administrative, judicial process, and industry body
activity.  If there is any agency or judicial body in
the world with a "two pleading per day" rule, it's not
apparent where it exists.

8. Such a rule is also definitely unknown in the on-line
or Internet world where interactive discussions have
been the hallmark and the strength of the medium, and
contributed immeasurably to the robustness, acceptance,
and growth of the systems and their use.   Indeed, the
very purpose of email based discussion groups is to
encourage very active dialogue and collaboration among
the participants.

9. In the instant case, a rule is being propagated that
defeats the very purposes for which these groups were
created.  They are, after all, "working groups."

10. Such a rule effectively closes substantive
discussion.  If you initiate discussion, you get to post
one responsive answer that day.  If you submit a comment
on any matter, you get to submit only one reply comment
that day.  If more than two issues arise and you submit
two notes, you cannot further comment that day.   If you
have already submitted your allotted two email messages
and have forgotten some material point, you must refrain
from speaking until the next day.  The rule plainly has
a chilling effect on substantive treatment of issues

11. The rule is also discriminatory in a number of ways.
If a party isn't active on a daily basis, they're
ability to submit comments is effectively limited.  For
example, if a person is absent from a list discussion
for several days and returns, they can only post two
responses to all the issues raised during their absence.
It is also discriminatory vis-a-vis the technically
knowledgeable who can instantly create multiple accounts
or otherwise defeat any possible enforcement of the
rule.  (Indeed, the rule may even create an incentive
for potentially abusive users to spam the list out of
existence.)

12. Such a rule is also inherently arbitrary and vague.
Which time zone gets used for applying the rule?  The
DNSO Secretariat is on Central European Time, but the
participants exist in local time zones all over the
world.  How are participants to effectively understand
what is required of them, and how is this to be enforced
in anything other than an arbitrary manner?

13. The vagueness and arbitrariness is an invitation to
discriminatory enforcement by chairpersons or
participants who seek to shut off unpopular comments or
participants.

REQUESTED ACTION

14. The subject rule is fundamentally inconsistent with
ICANN's basic purposes, Articles of Incorporation,
Bylaws, contractual and cooperative agreements, and the
relevant Policy Statement of NTIA.  The 28 Sept 1999
agreements were supposed to mark a new period of
responsive, responsible, and open behavior by ICANN and
its subsidiary bodies.  If the subject rule exists by virtue
of some Names Council decision, it should be voided, and
in any case should remain unenforced pending the outcome
of any needed determination in this matter.

/signed/

Anthony M. Rutkowski
NGI Associates
Herndon VA

PGP fingerprint:
E715 C174 85C7 2E61 B5AC  A593 1612 5974 399D CA60