Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #402
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Wednesday, April 18 2001          Volume 01 : Number 402

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 17:35:11 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sanctions

Hello Danny,

BTW, you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules.

You are required to issue a call for a limit of posts before there can
be any such violation.

You have issued no such call.

"If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the nuber[sic] of posts
per person per day, this must be respected"

The rule is only in effect if you have issued a call for such a limit.

I have searched the archives to find such a call, to no avail.

Not only that, but you took a chapter out of another former
organization leader in attributing your own motivations to people
leaving the list.  That person had it bite him in the rear when the
persons he attributed those motives too indicated that in fact it was
a result of HIS actions that those persons left.  Of course, that
person made the mistake of posting the names of the people he was
attributing motivations to.  You avoided that pitfall, probably a wise
move on your part.

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 4:28:33 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Today two valued members of this General Assembly have unsubscribed from the
> GA list.

> As Chair, I can no longer tolerate patterns of abusive list behavior that
> compromise efforts to enhance participation in this body.

> Over the course of the last week it has been noted that William X. Walsh has
> chosen not to abide by the decision to reasonably limit postings to five per
> day:

> April 17 - 13 posts
> April 16 --  9 posts
> April 15 --  5 posts
> April 14 --  8 posts
> April 13 --  6 posts
> April 12 - 11 posts
> April 11 - 17 posts

> I am therefore directing the List Monitor to impose necessary sanctions.

> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 20:35:06 -0400
From: "JandL" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

> I'm sorry, but I think your analysis of ICANN-as-monopoly is *very*
> far from describing ICANN's real behavior or its real nature or even
> it's possible nature.  

Wrong.  It is acting as if it were, in fact, a monopoly which desires 
to control an entire industry based on its own arbitrary standards 
and does not allow all industry members to participate.

I think a far better model for ICANN would be a
> professional society, or a industry standards body.  I'm thinking of
> organizations like the American Bar Association, or the American
> Medical Association, or the American Institute of Certified Public
> Accountants, or the Underwriters Laboratories (Sorry these are all
> american institutions -- just the ones I'm familiar with).  

These are all trade associations whose memberships require that 
they be involved in the industry as a whole.  The associations, 
themselves, do not "certify" the accountants, attorneys or 
manufacturers.  They do determine some best practices and 
technical/professional standards, but do not require that members 
meet them all.  They are, instead, guidelines to which members 
strive.  The UL is different in that it "rates" and "approves" products 
to carry their seal of approval.

ICANN, OTOH, acts like a governance body that imposes its own 
"law" in the form of discriminating against those who will not 
contract with them to adopt their arbitrary policies and refuses to 
include those who would qualify under membership rules in a trade 
association of the type you mentioned above.  As a matter of fact, 
the very entities who should be "members" are not allowed a voice 
at all.

In actuality, ICANN is a closed organization open only to backers.  
They have no membership among interested relevant parties except 
for a few select interests.  The majority of interested parties may 
comment, but not participate in any material sense.

These kind
> of organizations have quasi regulatory powers; they are frequently
> recognized by law; they are monopolies. 

Actually, they do not.  The ABA lobbies heavily, but does not make 
law or rules for the public to follow.  Neither does the AMA.  The do 
some self regulation and also lobby heavily for legislation.  They do 
not force the public to conform to their policies or contracts.  They 
cannot supercede any law of any jurisdiction with any of their 
decisions and do not have any authority, implied or otherwise, on 
individuals in the public sector.  Are they influential?  Oh my yes, as 
a powerful lobby.  Can they make policy to govern the public and 
business directly?  No.  

Does ICANN absolutely - via UDRP, registry/registrar contracts...

 However, NONE of them have an
> "at-large membership" that makes them "accountable" to the public at
> large. 

Why would they.  They are trade/professional associations. 

Neither does ICANN.  It never really did, as referenced in the 
bylaws.  It has never been accountable to the public, or even its 
own peers.  It has provided a forum for public comment in order to 
pay lip service to it, but pays little or no attention to those who 
speak up if those spokespersons are in opposition to the party line.  
As one congressperson put it, "They answer to no one but almighty 
God."  Another wondered if they even answer to him. 

Instead, they rely on the fact that the entities involved
> compete against each other, but have a common interest in standards.
> The decisions made by these bodies most certainly have an impact on
> the general public, but the general public doesn't have direct
> representation. 
> 

Of course not.  Why would a non-attorney have input into the ABA 
or a non-medical doctor have input into the AMA?  However, should 
a TLD holder or registry have input into the technical standards for 
the way TLDs are operated?  Root operators for the way roots are 
handled?  Should they be represented or dictated to by fiat?  If you 
were an attorney, would you expect to become a member of the 
ABA if you so chose?  Would you wish to have the ABA dictate 
where you could practice and what type of practice you could have?

ICANN has more than an impact on the public.  Its policies directly 
attempt to govern the internet used by the public and determines 
what the public will or will not be allowed to use, purchase, interact 
with or participate in any way.  It governs outside of any legally 
recognized legislative jurisdiction and without legal authority as 
opposed to a trade association which deals with participants in a 
limited spectrum and whose polices affect only its members.  ICANN 
has the ability to control the world's internet if it is allowed to run 
roughshod on its peers in the industry - TLD holders and root 
managers - as well as the public.  It has the power and is using it 
to destroy individuals, businesses and organizations while disallowing 
those it injures from having any meaningful direct participation.

It is, in fact, an organization that answers to no one, avoids the 
APA by design (Representative Pickering) and is backed by a very 
select group of special interests.

It needs reform, badly.

Mind you, I am not saying that an organization could not be an 
asset to the Internet in determining technical standards with input 
from relevant participants, but it should not be allowed to exclude 
any relevant participants in the industry or the public which it is 
supposed to serve.  It should, instead be controlled by a wide 
representation of all relevant participants.  It should not have any 
power to supercede any national or local laws in any nation.  It 
should have no control over private business models and should not 
interfere with private business, according to its MOU.

Leah

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:19:53 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

The list monitor finds reasonable proof that William Walsh 
<[email-masked]> has sent 13 postings to the GA list dated April 
17, 12 postings dated April 15, and 10 postings dated April 13.

He has been previously warned that this posting rate is not consistent with 
previously announced daily posting limits for the GA list.

His posting privilleges are therefore suspended for 2 weeks, ending on May 
2, 2001.

Note: The list monitor is still conferring with the newly elected chair 
about other violations of list rules that have occured recently. A decision 
will hopefully come forth shortly.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:33:38 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Sanctions

At 17:35 17.04.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>Hello Danny,
>
>BTW, you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules.
>
>You are required to issue a call for a limit of posts before there can
>be any such violation.
>
>You have issued no such call.
>
>"If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the nuber[sic] of 
>posts per person per day, this must be respected"
>
>The rule is only in effect if you have issued a call for such a limit.
>
>I have searched the archives to find such a call, to no avail.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html

The idea that a limit disappears when the chair is changed is fallacious.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:05:35 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Sanctions

Hello Harald,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 6:33:38 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> At 17:35 17.04.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>Hello Danny,
>>
>>BTW, you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules.
>>
>>You are required to issue a call for a limit of posts before there can
>>be any such violation.
>>
>>You have issued no such call.
>>
>>"If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the nuber[sic] of 
>>posts per person per day, this must be respected"
>>
>>The rule is only in effect if you have issued a call for such a limit.
>>
>>I have searched the archives to find such a call, to no avail.

> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html

> The idea that a limit disappears when the chair is changed is fallacious.

Without commenting on the merit of your interpretation above, which I
do not agree with, the assertion that a call that is over 60 days old
is still in effect is fallacious.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:08:12 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Sanctions

Also, the message you linked to states:

"I am recommending the list administrator to limit the maximum number of
messages that any subscriber can send per day to 5."

This was a recommendation to the list administrator to come up with a
way to limit the posts, NOT a call to the list membership to limit
their posts.

Your action is without merit.

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 7:05:35 PM, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Harald,

> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 6:33:38 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>> At 17:35 17.04.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>>Hello Danny,
>>>
>>>BTW, you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules.
>>>
>>>You are required to issue a call for a limit of posts before there can
>>>be any such violation.
>>>
>>>You have issued no such call.
>>>
>>>"If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the nuber[sic] of 
>>>posts per person per day, this must be respected"
>>>
>>>The rule is only in effect if you have issued a call for such a limit.
>>>
>>>I have searched the archives to find such a call, to no avail.

>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html

>> The idea that a limit disappears when the chair is changed is fallacious.

> Without commenting on the merit of your interpretation above, which I
> do not agree with, the assertion that a call that is over 60 days old
> is still in effect is fallacious.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:11:02 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[3]: [ga] Sanctions

I stand corrected.  The message you linked to is over 14 months old.

To imply that it has any bearing at all today is fallacious.

Remove the sanction, or I will make sure that this sanction is
unenforceable.

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 7:05:35 PM, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Harald,

> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 6:33:38 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>> At 17:35 17.04.2001 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>>>Hello Danny,
>>>
>>>BTW, you are wrong in your interpretation of the rules.
>>>
>>>You are required to issue a call for a limit of posts before there can
>>>be any such violation.
>>>
>>>You have issued no such call.
>>>
>>>"If the GA Chair or a list monitor asks for a limit to the nuber[sic] of 
>>>posts per person per day, this must be respected"
>>>
>>>The rule is only in effect if you have issued a call for such a limit.
>>>
>>>I have searched the archives to find such a call, to no avail.

>> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc03/msg01536.html

>> The idea that a limit disappears when the chair is changed is fallacious.

> Without commenting on the merit of your interpretation above, which I
> do not agree with, the assertion that a call that is over 60 days old
> is still in effect is fallacious.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 19:19:32 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello Harald,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 6:19:53 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> The list monitor finds reasonable proof that William Walsh 
> <[email-masked]> has sent 13 postings to the GA list dated April 
> 17, 12 postings dated April 15, and 10 postings dated April 13.

> He has been previously warned that this posting rate is not consistent with 
> previously announced daily posting limits for the GA list.

The so called "previous announced daily posting limits" was from a
post over 14 months old which did not in fact state that the posting
limits were in effect, but asked the list administrator to find a way
to enforce such limits.  And even if this message is taken as placing
the limit, to infer that it is still in effect today, after 14 months,
including EXTENDED periods of nearly no activity on this list during
that time, is absolutely a meritless justification, and is merely
being used a convenient excuse to quiet criticism.

You have proven that Froomkin and other's concerns over the list rules
were in fact on track.

> His posting privilleges are therefore suspended for 2 weeks, ending on May
> 2, 2001.

> Note: The list monitor is still conferring with the newly elected chair 
> about other violations of list rules that have occured recently. A decision 
> will hopefully come forth shortly.

This member has no doubt that the list monitor will continue to
enforce the rules in the inconsistent and biased manner in which has
shown himself inclined to do during his "term" of office.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 04:34:09 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

> The list monitor finds reasonable proof that William Walsh 
> <[email-masked]> has sent 13 postings to the GA list dated April 
> 17, 12 postings dated April 15, and 10 postings dated April 13.
> 
> He has been previously warned that this posting rate is not consistent with 
> previously announced daily posting limits for the GA list.
> 
> His posting privilleges are therefore suspended for 2 weeks, ending on May 
> 2, 2001.

I make no comment about the content of Mr Walsh's posts as this ruling did not 
judge them.  He has been suspended only for breaching the posting limit.

Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also 
breached the 5 posts per day limit.

Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April

I am in no way asking for these people to be "disciplined" also.  I merely 
suggest that the decision to suspend Mr Walsh on *the grounds stated* be 
revisited as it seems on the published grounds, there are another half dozen or 
more people who have done much the same.

Deciding whether a post is abusive or not is always going to be a subjective 
judgement of some sort.  However applying a posting limit should IMO be done 
far more objectively.

DPF

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 05:09:39 GMT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

> Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also 
> breached the 5 posts per day limit.
> 
> Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
> Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
> Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
> Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
> Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
> Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April

While the official archive for the DNSO mailing list shows 8 posts from Mr 
Crispin on April 17, Mr Crispin informs me that this is incorrect (probably 
depends on which time zone the list archive is in) and that he only sent 4 
messages on April 17.  I have not checked the headers but toally accept Mr 
Crispin's word that this is so and am happy to apologise for any upset this has 
caused him.

It does raise an interesting issue of how does one decide what a day is.  Is it 
*any* 24 hour period or is at using each poster's local time or is it UST or is 
it the local time of the list archive?

DPF

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:37:38 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended along with William.
Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is a 5 post limit.  It was
mentioned often enough during the Election for Chair and Co-Chair, indeed many of
us checked ourselves at the five post limit... even announced our intentions when
doing so..  it was bandied about quite a bit.  Everybody knows the rules.  The fact
that there were many (or few) is largely irrelevant.  The rules were broken and the
requisite penalty must be enforced in each case.  There is no degrees of breaking a
rule, or a law.  Once a set of rules breaks down, the machine breaks down.
Disorder and chaos soon follow.  Also, I think all of them could use a break from
each other, anyway (or at least in the public eye).   Speaking for myself, I am
tired of having the spiteful exchanges cluttering my Inbox.  As I am of the
democratic persuasion, I do not have a killfile.  Even when I did try to implement
one, my convictions could not allow it.  I still look to find one piece of import
in every message...  But, my patience is wearing thin.  I do not wish to see
another IDNO debacle on this List.  Ban the lot of them for the two week period.

Selah,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

[email-masked] wrote:

> > The list monitor finds reasonable proof that William Walsh
> > <[email-masked]> has sent 13 postings to the GA list dated April
> > 17, 12 postings dated April 15, and 10 postings dated April 13.
> >
> > He has been previously warned that this posting rate is not consistent with
> > previously announced daily posting limits for the GA list.
> >
> > His posting privilleges are therefore suspended for 2 weeks, ending on May
> > 2, 2001.
>
> I make no comment about the content of Mr Walsh's posts as this ruling did not
> judge them.  He has been suspended only for breaching the posting limit.
>
> Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also
> breached the 5 posts per day limit.
>
> Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
> Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
> Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
> Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
> Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
> Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April
>
> I am in no way asking for these people to be "disciplined" also.  I merely
> suggest that the decision to suspend Mr Walsh on *the grounds stated* be
> revisited as it seems on the published grounds, there are another half dozen or
> more people who have done much the same.
>
> Deciding whether a post is abusive or not is always going to be a subjective
> judgement of some sort.  However applying a posting limit should IMO be done
> far more objectively.
>
> DPF
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:02:21 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

[email-masked] wrote:

> It does raise an interesting issue of how does one decide what a day is.  Is it
> *any* 24 hour period or is at using each poster's local time or is it UST or is
> it the local time of the list archive?

A day, in this regard, should be reckoned by the date-postings on each email.  If
Kent sent x number of emails on a particular date-stamping, i.e. April 17, as long
as 5 or less messages are stamped as having been posted on the same date, he's in
the clear.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001 23:27:29 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello Sotiris,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 10:37:38 PM, Sotiris wrote:

> To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended along with William.
> Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is a 5 post limit.  It was
> mentioned often enough during the Election for Chair and Co-Chair, indeed many of
> us checked ourselves at the five post limit... even announced our intentions when
> doing so..

You voluntarily limited yourself, there was no actual limit imposed.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 02:32:13 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

I "voluntarily" obey the speed limit too (most of the time), but if I break it and a
cop calls me on it... well, I knew better.  By the time rules have to be "imposed",
people usually agree they've been broken.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 10:37:38 PM, Sotiris wrote:
>
> > To be fair, I think the lot of them should be suspended along with William.
> > Everyone on the list courtesy of DPF *know* that there is a 5 post limit.  It was
> > mentioned often enough during the Election for Chair and Co-Chair, indeed many of
> > us checked ourselves at the five post limit... even announced our intentions when
> > doing so..
>
> You voluntarily limited yourself, there was no actual limit imposed.
>
> --
> Best regards,
>  William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:19:24 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Hello Sotiris,

Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 11:32:13 PM, Sotiris wrote:

> I "voluntarily" obey the speed limit too (most of the time), but if I break it and a
> cop calls me on it... well, I knew better.  By the time rules have to be "imposed",
> people usually agree they've been broken.

This implies that the "law" of the speed limit was made into law.  In
the case of the GA, the chair has to explicit ask the list members as
a whole to limit their posts before the limit is imposed.

A vague reference to limits 14 months ago, more directed towards
finding a technical solution to enforce that kind of a limit without
subjective decisions does not satisfy that requirement of the "law" or
rule.

- -- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:[email-masked]

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 03:27:26 -0400
From: Sotiris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> Hello Sotiris,
>
> Tuesday, April 17, 2001, 11:32:13 PM, Sotiris wrote:
>
> > I "voluntarily" obey the speed limit too (most of the time), but if I break it and a
> > cop calls me on it... well, I knew better.  By the time rules have to be "imposed",
> > people usually agree they've been broken.
>
> This implies that the "law" of the speed limit was made into law.  In
> the case of the GA, the chair has to explicit ask the list members as
> a whole to limit their posts before the limit is imposed.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the ex Chair (Roberto) issue a warning to the List in
general just prior to the elections?

> A vague reference to limits 14 months ago, more directed towards
> finding a technical solution to enforce that kind of a limit without
> subjective decisions does not satisfy that requirement of the "law" or
> rule.

He really didn't have to go that far, I'll warrant as much...  One thing I've noticed, is
that every now and again these Lists suffer from some collective short-term amnesia of
some kind or other- it's really the oddest phenomenon!

Eupathically,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 00:52:27 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

We all agreed, at the time, for the rate of 5 postings per 24-hour period.
The question of start-stop time gateways is irrelevent to rate measurement.
Velocity is  ... velocity and intervals are intervals. Anything else is
dicing frog fur...a useless excersize. Note that I am past midnight, local
time, yet I am probably in violation of the rate limit. Although, I have no
idea about how far.

I also noted, and apologized, last Sunday, for my probable infraction. I
also apologize for this one. Also for Monday, I really wasn't aware of my
volume. This brings another point home to me, due to other issues, not
related to anything ICANN, I need to reduce my participation in these
festivities substantially. 

These messages take time and thought to write properly. I really don't have
it. I'm still composing a nasty-gram to my new (clueless) upstream provider
(SpeakEasy.NET) who can't seem to get reverse IP entries into their
IN-ADDR.ARPA records (RFC2317). That task's been on my desk for a week now.
The folks, on NANOG, will probably welcome my absence as well. There are
serious issues regarding CIDR, BGP4 /19 prefix filtering, and multi-homing
that they really need to answer. Actually it's an ICANN/ASO issue, but I
have no input there. ICANN really should be looking into a serious problem
there (moreso than DNS) because I really think that it is a policy issue.
[how many here know that over 100,000 businesses have ben cut off the
Internet in the past 90-days, due to DSL provider business failures? and
with Rythyms filing ch11, last week, (another 100,000 in the cold?) the only
player left is Covad Communications? Compared to that ... names are
>nothing<.]

I just spent 45 minutes, on this message, when I really should be trying to
get a few Oracle databases up (without correct ARPA records) and setting up
my Inprise Application Server (EJB) whilst trying to figure out why my
JDataStore has licensing problems (after I set both the license s/n and key
properly), debug a few JSP pages, and generally get Java in the house
(whilst getting DreamWeaver to cooperate with Jbuilder4). 

Let's just say that I'm a tad busy, if Sotiris wants to push for my
suspension then let it happen. I could use the time elsewhere.

Again, I apologize for exceeding the rate limit. I assure you, I wont do it
again.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sotiris [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 11:02 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for 
> mass postings
> 
> 
> [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> > It does raise an interesting issue of how does one decide 
> what a day is.  Is it
> > *any* 24 hour period or is at using each poster's local 
> time or is it UST or is
> > it the local time of the list archive?
> 
> A day, in this regard, should be reckoned by the 
> date-postings on each email.  If
> Kent sent x number of emails on a particular date-stamping, 
> i.e. April 17, as long
> as 5 or less messages are stamped as having been posted on 
> the same date, he's in
> the clear.
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] 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 [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 09:13:21 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Suspension of William Walsh for mass postings

Dear DPF,
I am sorry to turn you wrong.

My mail system was so much loaded that I scrapped a lot of junk
yesterday, so I cannot document precisely my own postings.

But I certainly crossed the 425 days old Roberto's suggestion yesterday
and the day before and probably the days before that.

Anyway I do not subscribe to the filtered list and I will continue receiving
everyone's post. I certaily support the bold approach of the new Chair,
but I think with him urgent to give it a revived appropriate frame. I hope
WXW is not barred from the sub-ML the Chair proposed ... I must say
I lost track of the URL.

But, dear WXW; you woul really help all of us in staying the nice and
sound list partner you also know to be.

Since WXW refered to the IDNO list management, I must say that I was
very confortable with two simple rules which existed there (and that WXW
used at his own advantage too). They might be translated in here as
follows:

1. a tool to be designed to automate the decision process.
     - a motion can be entered by anyone
     - if seconded by two persons and not objected within 72 hours it is
       adopted
     - otherwise it is subject to a vote. Result at the end of a week.
     - an amendment mechanism possible

2. a tool to be designed for complaint process:(so the process is
     transparent)
     - complaints can be filled by anyone but publicly
     - they must be seconded by 10 people
     - the concerned person may have a link to a position page
     - the decision is taken by a panel of 10 elected (not selected)
       people

The advantage of these is to automate processes removing the
burden from the Chair, making things transparent and equal for all,
and - I feel - quite fair.

I would like to propose a third improvement to our discussions to
decrease the load and really work towards consensus. This is my
"position link" proposition.

- - for each topic we want to discuss : a site and a sub-ML
- - on the site: links to pages by those who want one
- - throiugh these links people may document and update their
   positions
   - a new commer may understand the working positions quick
   - occasional contributors may share/help a lot with precise
     and matter of fact postings
   - this is self filtering: perturbators have usually no doctrine
   - the links de facto document the competence of participants,
     and act as competence filters witout anyone being hurt
- - the target is to reduce progressively the differences between
   position links, topic by topic, until consensa may be found.
   Nothing personal is involved : the positions are personal so
   everyone knows the positions and 'bias' of each link and try
   to reduce them in negotiating words and in deepening meanings.
   Those who do not want to move nor to explain why are
   putting themselves out. The Chair may remove the non
   supported links upon proposition of the positionneers.

Cheers...

Jefsey

On 06:34 18/04/01, [email-masked] said:
>Having perused the archives for this period I find the following have also
>breached the 5 posts per day limit.
>
>Chris Ambler - breached on 12, 14, 15 April
>Bradley Thorton - breached (by double) on 15 April
>Patrick Corliss - breached by double on 14 and 16 April
>Roeland Meyer - breached on 11, 12, 13, 15 and 17 April
>Dave Crocker - breached on 13 and 14 April
>Kent Crispin - breached on 17 April
>
>I am in no way asking for these people to be "disciplined" also.  I merely
>suggest that the decision to suspend Mr Walsh on *the grounds stated* be
>revisited as it seems on the published grounds, there are another half 
>dozen or
>more people who have done much the same.
>
>Deciding whether a post is abusive or not is always going to be a subjective
>judgement of some sort.  However applying a posting limit should IMO be done
>far more objectively.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #402
************************