Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #408
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Saturday, April 21 2001           Volume 01 : Number 408

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

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 08:29:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] On Privacy

Dear Chair,

I for one find the issues of Privacy and Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Speech
versus Privacy to be paramount policy concerns.  As I believe do most people.
The internet is most valuable if access is unfettered.  The internet is most
dangerous if it is captured by interests which can deny access in either
decemination or retrieval.

I have been asked by at least two ccTLD managers if the technology is available
for an entire country to have a filter for unwanted material from outside the
country. The answer to this is not one of capability but one of policy.  This is
the GA function.
Whether we are talking about National Security issues or whether or not my son
can access "Uncle Tom's Cabin" on the school provided internet this is an IANA
to ICANN to DoC to internetstakeholders policy issue.  From Italian
schoolchildren to Asian Premiers this issue effects us all and at present there
is only one body made up specifically to give the world advice on the issue and
fortunately, Mr. Chairman you head that body, so be careful what you step in
when you march.

Advice from the pontiffs and talking heads can not resolve this issue the issue
is unresolvable it is a moving living dynamic issue that will require our
constant vigil.  The value that this GA can provide is a bottoms-up somewhat of
a consensus reflection of what us dotcommoner netizens feel and think on the
issue. I know of at least two U.S. Senators and two country ccTLDs nics that
would value greatly any support we can give them in this regard.  I think that
straw polls on specific topics would be helpful to guide us through with
direction.

Sincerely,

"babybows.com" wrote:

> I would like to thank Dave Crocker for reminding me to remain focused on
> ICANN's very narrow scope of activities.  (I had thought that governmental
> intrusion into areas that affected ICANN stakeholders, like the libraries in
> the non-commercial constituency, was a subject open to discussion, in much
> the same way as Department of Commerce preferential treatment of
> Intellectual Property interests to the detriment of other constituencies
> might be a valid topic of discussion, but I will defer to Dave's better
> judgement on what constitutes an ICANN-related matter).   I will be glad to
> rephrase my comment accordingly, and to express my personal interest in
> those privacy matters that are specifically relevant to ICANN:

- --
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 01:27:44 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection

I disagree. ICANN is a private corp with an advisory contract to DOC. It is
trying to transition to actual management. That is ... all there is. It is
failing at that task (IMHO).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JandL [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2001 7:16 PM
> To: Thomas Roessler; Dave Crocker
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: iCANN's protection
> 
> 
> A public utilities commission is government.  ICANN is private, but 
> acting as government.  It is, in fact, acting like a monopoly in the 
> rootzone business and attempting to control who can or cannot 
> participate in the industry.  It is acting like government in setting 
> policy that citizens (users) must comply with, but who have no real 
> representation in that government.  So it is more like a dictatorship 
> with advisors.  It is something undefined in law that can create 
> policies that act and look like law by fiat and that supercedes law.
> 
> > At 02:04 PM 4/18/2001, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > > > 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. I think a far better model
> > > > for ICANN would be a professional society, or a 
> industry standards
> > > > body.
> > >
> > >Let's diregard the USG's role, and let's look at the 
> product ICANN is
> > >offering to the public: The root zone file.  ICANN is currently the
> > >only source for a generally-accepted root zone, that is, ICANN is a
> > >(probably natural) monopoly on the market to root zone files.
> > 
> > 
> > Let's just check a question about the use of the term "monopoly".
> > 
> > There is a type of oversight body, sometimes called a "public
> > utilities commission".  It does not provide direct service; 
> rather it
> > oversees the work and pricing of those organizations that DO provide
> > service.  I have never heard anyone refer to such a commission as a
> > monopoly.
> > 
> > Please explain why you DO refer to a public utilities 
> commission as a
> > monopoly.
> > 
> > If you do not refer to them that way, then please explain the
> > operational differences between the role and style of ICANN, versus
> > such a commission.
> > 
> > d/
> > 
> > 
> > ----------
> > Dave Crocker   <mailto:[email-masked]>
> > Brandenburg InternetWorking   <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> > tel: +1.408.246.8253;   fax: +1.408.273.6464
> > 
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga-full" 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
> 
- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:48:35 -0000
From: "Roberto GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors

Dassa wrote:

>
>* Perhaps the list decorum rule could be adjusted to reflect the level
>of discomfort felt by the list members.  Instead of a List Monitor
>making a subjective judgement on the suitability of any postings, it
>may be more objective to set the penalties on the number of complaints
>made respecting certain posts or posters.  By this I would suggest
>invoking penalties if the number of unique complaints sent to abuse
>from list members reaches certain percentages.  For instance, if only
>one to three abuse complaints are sent in, a warning only is sent.  If
>5-10% of list participants send in a complaint, the offender is
>suspended for two weeks and so on.  This would be an attempt to apply
>an objective measurement to not the contents of the post complained
>about, but the impact on the mailing list.

It is a good idea, but I see some problems with it.
If we codify this into a strict rule, the danger is that a group of 5-10% 
participants can manage to shut up somebody that they disagree with.
While this is in principle possible by the List Monitor, at least the List 
Monitor is taking full responsibility for his/her actions, and is 
accountable to the GA (he/she can be removed, for instance).
OTOH, an organized minority can do damage without being accountable to the 
majority.

I think that the only way out is human intervention, by respected (on the 
whole) and accountable person, on the basis of *draft* rules, with the 
possibility to apply (motivated) exceptions. Of course, the "performance" of 
this person is easily measured by the number of objections to his/her 
judgement: if the GA starts disagreeing too much, maybe it's time for either 
the list monitor to change the parameters of his/her judgement, or it is 
time to change List Monitor.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:58:21 -0000
From: "Roberto GA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Jefsey,

>
>What is expected is simple and common:
>- a motion is proposed
>- the motion is seconded
>- the motion is acknowledged
>- the motion may be opposed
>- if it not opposed it is deemed accepted
>- if it is opposed it is made to a vote
>- if the vote is in favor of the motion, the motion is accepted
>- once accepted the motion is acted upon and the way it is carried out is
>subject to ML consensus or debate.

I have a comment on this, from my past experience as Chair.
Sometimes this Assembly is jumping to motions before having made any effort 
to debate the issue.
IMHO, the debate of the issue has to be done *before* the presentation of 
motions, and not following it.
In fact, when a motion is presented, seconded and acknowledged, there is no 
further debate, if not on the wording of the motion.
So I was feeling the need of a step in the procedure that allows the Chair 
"not to acknowledge the motion" because of lack of previous discussion, and 
in this case to send an implicit invitation to debate (and maybe give a 
deadline, at which the floor will be open for motions).

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:00:38 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Energy and Commerce Markup and Hearing Announcement

FYI.......:)

/Bruce

The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet will meet in an open
markup session on Thursday, April 26, 2001 at 9:30 a.m. in 2123 Rayburn
House Office Building, and subsequent days if necessary, to consider H.R.
___, "The Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001." This
legislation will also be the subject of the Full Committee hearing scheduled
for Wednesday, April 25, 2001.

- ----------------------------------------
The House Committee on Energy and Commerce
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
(202) 225-2927
http://www.house.gov/commerce

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:34:38 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software 

Dear members,

The following proposal was submitted to me.  Your evaluation and feedback is
requested:

Danny -- fwiw, you might take a look at www.VirtualWorkroom.com -- Vroom is
group decision-making software (web based) that I've been developing with
Don Telage. If you wanted to experiment with this for some working groups,
we would be happy to make it available to you at no charge (have made this
offer to ICANN staff, but they've been too busy to focus on it.) Don't think
we can supply the servers on which to run it for you, but would certainly
like to help with development of effective, asynchronous online processes if
you are interested.

David Johnson
[email-masked]

best regards,
Danny Younger

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 10:03:30 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Roberto GA [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 3:49 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors
|>
|> It is a good idea, but I see some problems with it.
|> If we codify this into a strict rule, the danger is that a
|> group of 5-10% participants can manage to shut up somebody
|> that they disagree with.
|> While this is in principle possible by the List Monitor,
|> at least the List Monitor is taking full responsibility
|> for his/her actions, and is accountable to the GA (he/she
|> can be removed, for instance).
|> OTOH, an organized minority can do damage without being
|> accountable to the majority.

The numbers can be set in such a way that a "organised minority" can
not "take over" the process.  List Monitors would still have a place
to oversee the process and to provide human intervention where
necessary.  This would be a requirement as it would be necessary to
monitor abuse of the abuse system.  The human intervention would be
removed from the content however.

|> I think that the only way out is human intervention, by
|> respected (on the whole) and accountable person, on the
|> basis of *draft* rules, with the possibility to apply
|> (motivated) exceptions. Of course, the "performance" of
|> this person is easily measured by the number of objections
|> to his/her judgement: if the GA starts disagreeing too much,
|> maybe it's time for either the list monitor to change the
|> parameters of his/her judgement, or it is time to change
|> List Monitor.

The problems you have with my suggestion apply in more severity with
the approach you are suggesting.  It is much easier for a single or
multiples (small numbers) of List Monitors to highjack the abuse
process and cause damage to its credibility.  My suggestion shares the
responsibility out to the participants and doesn't leave it on the
shoulders of a single or couple of volunteers.  Respect for any
individual is hard to come by in a mailing list like the GA, my
understanding is it has a fluctuating membership.  If the membership
was consistant, it may be easier.

I often see this concern of minority groups taking over mailing lists
and other mechanisms of groups.  I don't know what people think the
majority would be doing whilst such attempts are being conducted.  If
a minority can take over any system, then that system deserved to be
taken over as the other participants clearly were either not capable
or not willing to make it effective.  I see such concerns as stemming
from the concept of a small number of people actually being (wanting
to be) in positions of authority and not coming from the process of
having wide effective participation.  Instead of building for large
numbers of participants and actively working to put mechanisms into
place to deal with all the issues, we see people building  moats and
making sure the drawbridge can be raised quickly.  The idea is to push
the walls over, fill the moat in and let all participate and take
responsibility for the security and growth of the group.

The more we can move away from having small numbers of people
responsible for functions and push those functions out to the whole
group to be responsible the better.

I also think it is a dangerous precedent to begin relying on the
judgements of individuals.  We need processes that rely on the
judgement of the group as a whole.  This is especially true when
discussing "exceptions" to any rules and processes.

The line "this person is easily measured by the number of objections
to his/her judgement: if the GA starts disagreeing too much," also
raises the hair on the back of my neck.  It is loaded with subjective
assessments.  The whole process is flawed once you introduce so much
subjectivity into not only the rulings but also the performance
indicators.

As with the List Chairs, the List Monitors need to be looking to the
list participants themselves for direction and judgement.  The
positions are there to focus the needs and objectives of the list
participants.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:14:07 -0700
From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software 

babybows.com wrote:
> Your evaluation and feedback is requested:

I've used earlier versions of this software and would support its use as
trial the next time we have an opportunity. Sounds like we'll also need a
volunteer willing to provide a web-server, though perhaps the new DNSO
Secretariat will be able to provide that service for us.

    -- Bret

- --
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: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 20:26:41 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Names Council Agenda-DNSO Archives

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0C9D8.3567FC20
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

 http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00238.html

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0C9D8.3567FC20
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><BR>&nbsp;<A=20
href=3D"http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00238.html">htt=
p://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-intake/Arc00/msg00238.html</A></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2>/Bruce</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT face=3DVerdana=20
size=3D2></FONT></STRONG>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0C9D8.3567FC20--

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:19:45 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] VeriSign "Test Bed"

Internet Names Go International, 18 April 2001
NEW YORK (AP) - The wait is over if you want an Internet address in
Hebrew, Arabic or Thai.

You can even begin that address with a symbol - like a smiley face,
Zodiac sign or a copyright circle.

VeriSign Inc., the master-keeper of domain names ending in ".com,"
".net" and ".org," begins taking orders Thursday for hundreds of symbols
and nearly two dozen language scripts from the Middle East, Southeast
Asia and the Indian subcontinent.
 http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/tech/2001/apr/18/041806899.html

With thanks to David Golstein of the Australian [DNS] mailing list

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 13:31:33 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

Roberto Gaetano <[email-masked]> wrote
On Saturday, April 21, 2001 3:58 AM (AEST)
Subject: Re: [ga] DNSO/GA Blocking and other concerns

> I have a comment on this, from my past experience as Chair.

The following URL has been drawn to my attention:

> Take a look at the following put together by Mark Langston

Robert's Rules of Order, 
As Adapted and Revised to Accomodate Electronic Bodies
http://www.bitshift.org/archives/rror.shtml

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 14:32:31 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Interesting Reading - Some Other Mailing List Rules

Dassa <[email-masked]> wrote:
On Saturday, April 21, 2001 10:03 AM (AEST)
Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors

> I also think it is a dangerous precedent to begin relying on the
> judgements of individuals.  We need processes that rely on the
> judgement of the group as a whole.  This is especially true when
> discussing "exceptions" to any rules and processes.

The Rules, of course, say:

> Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors) have the
> task of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.

The whole GA doesn't really want to be called upon to monitor the list on a
daily basis, that's why they have delegated responsibility.  Arbitrary
decision making is mitigated by having a panel of five list monitors.

I presume the "exception" you are referring to is my following comment:

> However, I will take this opportunity to advise all members that I will not
> participate in any adjudication by the List Monitors, or in fact any part of
> the process, in which a complaint has been lodged either by me or against
> me.

I would submit, to the list, that a person "recusing" from a decision in which
they have a conflict of interest is a standard protocol and not any form of an
"exception" to the rules.

Personally I think that the mailing list is a most difficult medium.  It may
be that we can devise a set of rules which balances a member's right to post
with other members' rights to be free of insults or abuse.  It should include
safeguards against unnecessary or repetitive postings.   Here are examples
of other mailing list rules:

Rules of the Shelby Dodge Mailing List.
http://www.sdml.org/rules.html

Eczema Mailing List - Rules and Guidelines for Posting
http://website.lineone.net/~eczema/guidelines.htm

Freelance Mailing List - List Rules
http://www.comteck.com/~tanuki/welcome.html

Militia Watchdog Mailing List
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/maillist.htm

Meroitic Mailing List and Rules
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/5239/rules.html

GDP-UK & SoE-UK Mailing Lists - List Rules
http://tony.jacobs.net/dental/rules.htm

Euro-Film Mailing List - Rules And Procedures
http://members.tripod.co.uk/euro_selections/euro_film_list.htm

PShift Mailing List Rules
http://www.were.net/~pinky/maillistrules.html

Grumman-Gang Mailing List Rules
http://www.xmission.com/~markm/grumman-gang/rules.html

The Lincolnshire Genealogy Mailing List - Rules of the Mailing list
http://www.neep.demon.co.uk/lincsml/rules.html

3d-Ark Mailing List Rules
http://www.3dark.com/mailinglists/3dark/3dark_rules.html

Membership Rules for theregistry Mailing List
http://www.birthfamily.com/theregistry_rules.htm

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:02:52 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

The Chair & GA Members

We could spend our time examining List Rules & Protocols but I see this as
only one item on an agenda which should include many other important issues.
Some of these may need to be addressed as a matter of priority.  One urgent
issue, for example, is funding !!

Could I ask the floor whether the following list is complete?  It already
includes the Chair's concerns on "Registrant/Whois Privacy" and anything else
I can think of.  I appreciate Joop's point that some motions have already been
proposed to the Chair.

Do we even think it is appropriate to deal with issues in a structured manner?

> Accounting & Reporting
> Alternate Root Systems (Colliders)
> Conflict of Interests
> Consensus Process
> Constituency Structure
> Dispute Resolution
> Dot Org and Non-Profits
> Generic & Chartered Domains
>     (.com, .edu, .org, .us, etc.)
> Electoral Procedures
> Finance & Funding Support
> ICANN Directors
> Individual Constituency
> List Rules & Protocols
> Mailing List Facilities
> Membership Structure
> Multilingual DNS
> Names Council Relationship
> Outreach & Participation
> Registrant/Whois Privacy
> Registrar Accreditation, QA
> Registry-Registrar Separation
> Verisign Agreement
> Voting and Electoral Issues
> Website & Communication
> Working Groups
>
> It has also been suggested that we should also request directly to Philip &
Paul
> Kane (with copies to nc members) specific  inclusion of ga chair & co-chair
in
> next Names Council teleconf with budgeted time to promote the GA agenda for
the
> next year.  This seems to be a valuable idea and I thank the relevant
person.
>
> I'm sure I speak for you, Danny, when I say that we would welcome any
feedback
> from the list on what priority should be given to items on the proposed
agenda..

Regards
Patrick Corliss
Co-Chair Elect

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 08:58:36 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software

I support also the use, on an experimental/evaluation  basis) of the 
software.
We have at least three candidate sub-lists: I would hope that one of the 
three will elect to volounteer for the experiment.
Roberto

>From: Bret Fausett <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>
>Subject: Re: [ga] Working Group Decision-Making Software
>Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 17:14:07 -0700
>
>babybows.com wrote:
> > Your evaluation and feedback is requested:
>
>I've used earlier versions of this software and would support its use as
>trial the next time we have an opportunity. Sounds like we'll also need a
>volunteer willing to provide a web-server, though perhaps the new DNSO
>Secretariat will be able to provide that service for us.
>
>     -- Bret
>
>--
>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
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 22:46:54 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 16:02:52 +1000, you wrote:

>Could I ask the floor whether the following list is complete?  It already
>includes the Chair's concerns on "Registrant/Whois Privacy" and anything else
>I can think of.  I appreciate Joop's point that some motions have already been
>proposed to the Chair.

I think if anything it is too complete.  I think that it will be
beyond our capability to even scratch the surface of so many topics.
It is useful having them all listed but for my 2c I would concentrate
on:

>> Consensus Process
>> Constituency Structure
>> Electoral Procedures
>> Finance & Funding Support
>> Individual Constituency
>> List Rules & Protocols
>> Mailing List Facilities
>> Names Council Relationship
>> Voting and Electoral Issues
>> Website & Communication
>> Working Groups

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 20:58:38 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] RE: Interesting Reading - Some Other Mailing List Rules

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 2:33 PM
|> To: Darryl Lynch
|> Cc: [GA]
|> Subject: Interesting Reading - Some Other Mailing List Rules
|>
|>
|> Dassa <[email-masked]> wrote:
|> On Saturday, April 21, 2001 10:03 AM (AEST)
|> Subject: RE: [ga] List Monitors
|>
|> > I also think it is a dangerous precedent to begin relying on the
|> > judgements of individuals.  We need processes that rely on the
|> > judgement of the group as a whole.  This is especially true when
|> > discussing "exceptions" to any rules and processes.
|>
|> The Rules, of course, say:
|>
|> > Certain persons appointed by the GA Chair (the list monitors)
have the
|> > task of monitoring the list for posts that violate these rules.
|>
|> The whole GA doesn't really want to be called upon to
|> monitor the list on a
|> daily basis, that's why they have delegated
|> responsibility.  Arbitrary
|> decision making is mitigated by having a panel of five
|> list monitors.

I don't see it that way.  All participants already monitor the list on
a daily basis or as often as they feel the urge.  They already make
complaints if they do not appreciate any posts.  Nothing would change
except the abuse system would respond to the actual feelings of the
list and not to any individual or set of individuals with delegated
responsibility.  There would still be a need for List Monitors
however, they would need to supervise the automated processes and
protect against abuse of it and also to respond to individual
complaints etc.

|> I presume the "exception" you are referring to is my
|> following comment:
|>
|> > However, I will take this opportunity to advise all
|> members that I will not
|> > participate in any adjudication by the List Monitors, or
|> in fact any part of
|> > the process, in which a complaint has been lodged either
|> by me or against
|> > me.

Nope, I haven't made any comment on the above and didn't intend to.
That is standard practice and I would assume all List Monitors would
respond in a similar manner.  No the exceptions I was talking about
were where List Monitors may not apply the rules due to deciding the
poster/posting should be excempt due to some undocumented or
unapproved process/decision by them.

|> I would submit, to the list, that a person "recusing" from
|> a decision in which
|> they have a conflict of interest is a standard protocol
|> and not any form of an
|> "exception" to the rules.

I certainly agree.

|> Personally I think that the mailing list is a most
|> difficult medium.  It may
|> be that we can devise a set of rules which balances a
|> member's right to post
|> with other members' rights to be free of insults or abuse.
|>  It should include
|> safeguards against unnecessary or repetitive postings.
|> Here are examples
|> of other mailing list rules:

When you get into unnecessary postings you are venturing out onto very
thin ice.  That would be a very difficult issue to judge and is even
more reason to shift responsibility for such judgements back to the
whole list and not to delegate such decisions.  Repetitive posting
abuse handling can be automated.  Insults and abuse are very difficult
issues for any individuals to make decisions on in a multi-cultural
setting.  Another reason I would like to see a system evolve that
utilises the whole list in the process.

|> Rules of the Shelby Dodge Mailing List.
|> http://www.sdml.org/rules.html
|>
|> Eczema Mailing List - Rules and Guidelines for Posting
|> http://website.lineone.net/~eczema/guidelines.htm
|>
|> Freelance Mailing List - List Rules
|> http://www.comteck.com/~tanuki/welcome.html
|>
|> Militia Watchdog Mailing List
|> http://www.militia-watchdog.org/maillist.htm
|>
|> Meroitic Mailing List and Rules
|> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Troy/5239/rules.html
|>
|> GDP-UK & SoE-UK Mailing Lists - List Rules
|> http://tony.jacobs.net/dental/rules.htm
|>
|> Euro-Film Mailing List - Rules And Procedures
|> http://members.tripod.co.uk/euro_selections/euro_film_list.htm
|>
|> PShift Mailing List Rules
|> http://www.were.net/~pinky/maillistrules.html
|>
|> Grumman-Gang Mailing List Rules
|> http://www.xmission.com/~markm/grumman-gang/rules.html
|>
|> The Lincolnshire Genealogy Mailing List - Rules of the Mailing list
|> http://www.neep.demon.co.uk/lincsml/rules.html
|>
|> 3d-Ark Mailing List Rules
|> http://www.3dark.com/mailinglists/3dark/3dark_rules.html
|>
|> Membership Rules for theregistry Mailing List
|> http://www.birthfamily.com/theregistry_rules.htm

Thank you.  I will look these over.  I will also be preparing some
guidelines myself for submission to any working group formed to look
into this issue.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 21:01:32 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked]
|> [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> DPF
|> Sent: Saturday, April 21, 2001 8:47 PM
|> To: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] Agenda for the Stockholm Meeting
|>
|> I think if anything it is too complete.  I think that it will be
|> beyond our capability to even scratch the surface of so
|> many topics.
|> It is useful having them all listed but for my 2c I would
|> concentrate
|> on:
|>
|> >> Consensus Process
|> >> Constituency Structure
|> >> Electoral Procedures
|> >> Finance & Funding Support
|> >> Individual Constituency
|> >> List Rules & Protocols
|> >> Mailing List Facilities
|> >> Names Council Relationship
|> >> Voting and Electoral Issues
|> >> Website & Communication
|> >> Working Groups

I agree with DPF.  The above would appear to be more than substantial
topics that will give the GA a chance to make some progress with.  Too
many topics at once may be more than the participants could contribute
meaningfully on.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch

- --
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 #408
************************