[ga-abuse] POLICY - List Monitor Committee

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@corliss.net>]

Given the Chair's view and the majority of the Committee's agreement, I
propose the following statement should be issued continuing the current
suspensions acroos the board.  Could I ask everyone to signal their
acceptance or rejection, please:

ACCEPT REJECT

Chair, Members GA

Six new mailing lists have been created to provide a forum for discussion by
working groups prior to the Stockholm meeting early next month.  It is
expected that there will be a reasonable amount of flexibility allowed
within each group to appoint a list moderator or to set its own policies in
relation to list rules and excess postings.

Until this new environment has been properly established, the List Monitor
Committee has determined that the existing rules will remain in place on the
new lists.  An excess posting limit of five daily postings per person will
therefore apply to each list.

Four out of five list monitors have agreed that persons who have had their
posting rights withdrawn should continue their suspension for the remainder
of the term imposed by the former list monitor. There are two such persons
namely Jeff Williams and Joe Baptista.  This continuing suspension will
apply to all of the GA lists.

All members are reminded that one of the new lists has been established to
review the current policies in relation to Internal Processes.  This is
[ga-int].  Until new posting rules are established, any loss of posting
rights will be imposed across the board.

The Chair has confirmed his acceptance of these procedures, agreed by a
majority of the List Monitor Committee, pending the formulation of new list
rules on the Internal Processes list.  It is, of course, open to any person
with a grievance to submit an appeal to the Chair, at any time, for his
consideration.

All members interested in providing input to the GA's list rules are
encouraged to join [ga-int] and participate in that debate.

Thanking you
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair, GA
for List Monitor Committee

----- Original Message -----
From: babybows.com <webmaster@babybows.com>
To: <ga-abuse@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2001 8:46 AM
Subject: [ga-abuse] Reply to URGENT -- sorry for the delay


> Dear Patrick,
>
> Any new policy should, of course, be posted to the GA-list.  The List
> Monitor Team will create its own procedures and policies.  The Chair will
> support those policies.  All policies are open to debate by the membership
> that may feel free to utilize the appropriate list to discuss changes in
> rules and procedures.  The report of the committee that discusses such
rules
> changes (if one ever emerges) will be submitted to the entire membership
so
> that they may vote upon whatever recommendations are put forth.   As Chair
I
> need to keep an appropriate distance from the decision-making process of
the
> monitors so that I can remain a neutral judge in the appeals process.
>
> As we have declared that the new lists are open to all, we should probably
> not do an about face (knowing that certain parties who abuse the rules
will
> soon incur penalties anyway which will result in them being denied access
to
> all the lists... after the policy is posted).
>
> Just my thoughts...
> But the list monitor committee is at liberty to proceed as they deem best.
> I will support whatever decision is taken.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@corliss.net]
> Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:40 AM
> To: Danny Younger
> Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve; [ga-abuse]
> Subject: URGENT - List Panel Protocols
>
> On Thursday, May 03, 2001 8:23 PM (AEST), Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> Subject: [ga-abuse] Re: Posting Rights - Six New Mailing Lists
>
>
> > At 00:13 03.05.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> > >As a majority of three list monitors have agreed, I will advise
Elisabeth
> to
> > >suspend Jeff Williams and Joe Baptista from the six new mailing lists.
> >
> > This decision must be published to the GA - saying it is a job for the
> > chairs, I think. Any debate should be done on ga-int, I think.
> > And suspensions on the new lists should wait until the policy has been
> > announced.
>
> Hi Danny
>
> Four out of five list monitors (i.e. all except Harald) have agreed that a
> person suspended from the main list should be suspended from all sublists.
> There are two such persons viz.  Jeff Williams and Joe Baptista.  Now we
> have agreed I'd like to implement this decision.
>
> I am concerned that Jeff Williams is posting his head off while we, the
> lists monitors, discuss what to do.  The longer we wait, the more likely
it
> will be that we appear arbitrary.  Meanwhile, unless advised otherwise,
Joe
> Baptista will assume he is still suspended.
>
> Harald thinks that this policy should first be published to the GA list.
I
> disagree but wish to consult with you as Chair.  I suggest the following
> protocols:
>
> (1)    A majority of the panel of list monitors can make decisions
relating
> to the the main GA list or any of its sublists in respect of:
>
>     (a)    the procedures to be adopted by the panel in making its
decision,
> and
>     (b)    the posting rights of persons subscribed to any of these lists.
>
> (2)    That such decisions can be conveyed to the DNSO Secretariat who
will
> implement them accordingly.
>
> (3)    That either the DNSO Secretariat or the Co-Chair will then notify
the
> relevant person and/or the GA List generally of the decision.
>
> (4)    That all decisions made by the panel of list monitors, whether
> considered policy of practice, are appealable to the Chair by the person
> affected.
>
> My view is decisions by a majority of the Panel are likely to be
> well-considered.  Respect for the Chair is maintained if he remains above
> the debate. However, the Chair may intervene at any time when he considers
> it would be equitable or appropriate.
>
> The list procedures are certain to be debated on the [ga-int] mailing list
> but I would rather have a fairly simple protocol in the meantime.
Stockholm
> is coming very soon and we really do need to get the rest of the debate
onto
> a proper foundation.
>
> At present, for example, William X. Walsh is arguing that we need to agree
> that there is even a problem in respect of the alt roots before we
consider
> any policy recommendations.  If we have to poll members just to agree that
> there is a problem this is just added delay.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
>
>
>