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

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

On 10-Oct-99 A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Not exactly.  Let's correct some of the "factual" aspects.
 
> 2. There is no apparent notice of this rule anywhere;

The notice that the Names Council had determined this workgroup to
not be acheiving its goal was made at the Santiago Meeting.  The
Names Council decision to delegate to Workgroup D to come up with a
solution to the WG-C problem was announced on the workgroup mailing
list as well at that time.  The fact of the pending decision by
WG-D and the Names Council for new rules on WG-C was mentioned
several times by the Co-Chairs as well as other list members.

When the rule was approved by the NC, the Workgroup co-chair posted
the rule to the list, and there was even some discussion of it at
that time.

This happened quite some time ago, and Tony apparently decided to
ignore it. 

> 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

Read it again. It really doesn't say that.  It says they may post
comments to a comments address.


> 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.

This was posted in to Workgroup C when the rule was adopted, and it
was formally announced the same day.  You may find the announcement
by the WG Co-Chair in the WG-C archives available online at the
DNSO website.
 
> 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.

It uses common sense, Tony, and depends on everyone's voluntary
compliance so that a formal process that would involve sanctions
for violations would not be needed.  This was also announced on the
mailing list at the same time the original announcement was made.

Perhaps you need to do your homework, and maybe stop ignoring some
messages to the workgroup list.
 
> 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.

The exact rule may not be used in noticable places, but indeed
there is a clear precedence in many public forums for LIMITING
COMMENTS.


> 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.

Your statement here is false. I have been on many lists that had
restrictions on quantity of postings to prevent the list traffic
from getting excessive, and to limit the chance that flame wars,
and "yes it is" "no it isn't" type threads, will cause the signal
to noise ratio on any given day to go up.

Might I suggest you might not have broard experience in dealing
with online forums, outside of the anarchist type policies in place
on the IFWP and domain-policy@lists.internic.net lists.
 
> 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

Odd, but the rule has been in effect for some time now, and it
hasn't result in this at all. In fact, there is no reason why you
cannot combine your daily points into one or two messages, rather
than posting several small retorts, as you are known to do when you
get into a "yes I am" "no I am not" type thread with certain other
participants.
 
> 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.)

There is no limit on the length of comments.  As I said, it would
not take much for someone to post a single message summarizing
their responses to the current issues on the list.
 

> 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?

As I indicated, the lack of formal rules on this was announced when
the rule was implemented, and basically told the list participants
to use common sense so that more formal rules were not necessary.
This would permit the occasional overage, etc.

But your harping on this issue may end up requiring that the rules
be more formalized.  It is really too bad that the rest of the list
will now have to take a much more formal approach to rules
compliance simply because you elected not to use common sense
applications and follow them.

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

You have no evidence that this has been the case, or that it will. 
In fact our cochairs stand on opposite sides of most of the
fundamental issues, thus pretty much insuring that no decision will
be made that is capricious.  So far they have been pretty wise.


As usual, Tony can't get his facts straight, and turns a small
issue that has had little to no impact on the responsible
participants into a major contentious issue.  His propensity for
knee jerk reactions (esp. with regard to NSI) is well known, and he
fears this rule may prevent him from being able to continue acting
like that.

Is it any wonder some people just totally filter him?

-
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/