Re: [ga-abuse] POLICY - List Monitor Committee

[Alexander Svensson <svensson@icannchannel.de>]

> 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

ACCEPT


> 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 posting rights withdrawn should continue their suspension for the remainder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
>>
>>
>>
>>