Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #556
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Thursday, June 21 2001           Volume 01 : Number 556

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 19:03:39 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Or the members of this list should make the final decision,
not the moderators. 

Earl Heather

> The rules should be scrapped.
> 
> Derek Conant
> DNSGA President and Chairman
> 
> "William X. Walsh" wrote:
> 

- --
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, 20 Jun 2001 18:51:45 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Earl,

Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 6:03:39 PM, Earl Heather wrote:

> Or the members of this list should make the final decision,
> not the moderators. 

No.  The moderators must be able to act independently.  Requiring a
vote on every action is prohibitive, and effectively means we have no
rules.

However, I think it is reasonable to place a limit on the moderators.

If more than a week has passed from the violation, the moderators
cannot act.

Maybe this will motivate them to review complaints in a more timely
manner and take more appropriate actions.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 20 Jun 2001 21:04:34 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

and therein lies your error
"The moderators must be able to act independently."

No moderator(s) should EVER be able to act independantly, in secret 
or without appeal.

Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what 
has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to 
the detriment of the list.

For example

WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?

Earl Heather

> Hello Earl,
> 
> Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 6:03:39 PM, Earl Heather wrote:
> 
> > Or the members of this list should make the final decision,
> > not the moderators. 
> 
> No.  The moderators must be able to act independently.  Requiring a
> vote on every action is prohibitive, and effectively means we have no
> rules.
> 
> However, I think it is reasonable to place a limit on the moderators.
> 
> If more than a week has passed from the violation, the moderators
> cannot act.
> 
> Maybe this will motivate them to review complaints in a more timely
> manner and take more appropriate actions.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> 
> --
> 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

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

Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:11:48 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[4]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Hello Earl,

Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 8:04:34 PM, Earl Heather wrote:

> and therein lies your error
> "The moderators must be able to act independently."

> No moderator(s) should EVER be able to act independantly, in secret 
> or without appeal.

There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
today.

> Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what 
> has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to 
> the detriment of the list.

> For example

> WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?

I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.

Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 01:10:49 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Earl and all assembly members,

  Indeed Earl, you are quite correct!  and this is only ONE of the
problems with the illegitimate rules currently.  And this was one of the
reasons that Erics suspension (Now reversed after Eric requested
that such occur).  There is an appeal process but it is done behind
the scenes.  This is not a good method nor is it accountable.  As such,
I feel that all of the rules should be scrapped, as I see a number of
others
do as well.

Earl Heather wrote:

> and therein lies your error
> "The moderators must be able to act independently."
>
> No moderator(s) should EVER be able to act independantly, in secret
> or without appeal.
>
> Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
> has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
> the detriment of the list.
>
> For example
>
> WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?
>
> Earl Heather
>
> > Hello Earl,
> >
> > Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 6:03:39 PM, Earl Heather wrote:
> >
> > > Or the members of this list should make the final decision,
> > > not the moderators.
> >
> > No.  The moderators must be able to act independently.  Requiring a
> > vote on every action is prohibitive, and effectively means we have no
> > rules.
> >
> > However, I think it is reasonable to place a limit on the moderators.
> >
> > If more than a week has passed from the violation, the moderators
> > cannot act.
> >
> > Maybe this will motivate them to review complaints in a more timely
> > manner and take more appropriate actions.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> > Userfriendly.com Domains
> > The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> > DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> >
> > --
> > 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 01:15:29 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

WXW and all assembly members,

  I ti interesting that you could be so interested in privacy in this
instance
but not in Whois records?  How does one justify such a juxtaposed
position I wonder?  WXW, care to elaborate a bit for all of us
on this?

  I suspect, but do not know, that there is another motivation for
this glaring inconsistency in such juxtaposed positions....

William X. Walsh wrote:

> Hello Earl,
>
> Wednesday, June 20, 2001, 8:04:34 PM, Earl Heather wrote:
>
> > and therein lies your error
> > "The moderators must be able to act independently."
>
> > No moderator(s) should EVER be able to act independantly, in secret
> > or without appeal.
>
> There is an appeal process.  Currenlty that is to the Chair. Roberto
> overturned actions, as Patrick did in his acting capacity earlier
> today.
>
> > Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
> > has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
> > the detriment of the list.
>
> > For example
>
> > WHO FILED THE COMPLAINTS ?
>
> I don't think that is relevant, really. I used to think that it should
> be mandatory, however I no longer do.  I think the complainant has a
> right to privacy, and I don't see how the identity of the complainant
> is relevant.  The moderator accepts responsibility for the action.
>
> Disclosure of complainants only leads to further inflammations.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 21:24:32 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

At 19:03 20/06/01 -0600, Earl Heather wrote:
>Or the members of this list should make the final decision,
>not the moderators.

And if that happens, it should happen via a web based tool and not dominate 
this list discussion space.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 13:34:26 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Dot-Antitrust anyone? fresh evidence

Dear Jeff,
I am afraid you are missing the point. When you enter a DN in your browser 
that name is scanned and possibly replaced with a canned address (Real 
Name). This process will now be used by IE to support VeriSign 
multinational names (yestderay annoucement). A multinational name is a 
normal DNS string with a certain semantic. This will certainly be made 
plain by a lot of justice decisions: all the people which rehistered bq_ as 
a string are blocked if I undestand well.

So what is a semantic? is there a big difference between bq_..... and 
.shop? VeriSign and MicroSoft will explain that IE is just offering a 
service to the user: to protect him from collisions by simili TLDs.

Vint started a real war purposedly. Stuart's yesterday position can be a 
basis for talks however it is more probably a political move. Anyway, they 
have now all the elements and possiblities to stop it through a consensus 
on the definition of what at minimum a TLD is.

Or we have  entered in a huge instability period and possibly an Internet 
split. We should have started a discussion on iCANN name space management 
instead of being trapped into arguing on 'roots' on a sub-list. We de facto 
freed their hands and now the problem is with all of us.

The solution is in heir hands: up to them to decide.
Jefsey

On 14:38 21/06/01, Jeff Williams said:
>Len and all,
>
>   Thanks for passing this along.
>
>   It is obvious that Stuart Lynn is either unaware or just not savvy
>enough to
>recognize that some large ISP's such as @home and Earthlink/Mindspring
>(My account service provider) do not require the New.Net Plugin to
>access
>their sites.  That's a huge number of stakeholders.  Recently also
>New.Net
>also partnered up with Prodigy which will bring a potential +10m
>users/stakeholders
>access to the much needed and increasingly desired TLD's and associated
>Domain Names.
>
>   Maybe someday the ICANN BoD and staff, most especially Stuart Lynn
>will come to their senses....  Hope springs eternal...
>
>Len Lindon wrote:
>
> > Getting Out of Dot-Nowhere
> > By Joanna Glasner
> > 2:00 a.m. June 20, 2001
> > http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,44625,00.html
> >
> > > For folks who actually have Web addresses in alternative domains, a more
> > > pressing concern is not whether the sites will continue operating so 
> much as
> > > whether anyone will visit them.
> > >
> > > Since sites operated by alternate registries aren't on the Internet's 
> central
> > > server, they're typically hard to access. More often than not, users 
> trying to
> > > get to dot-shop or dot-travel end up receiving "server not responding"
> > > messages.
> > >
> > > Given those technical hurdles, low traffic figures weren't much of a 
> surprise
> > ...
> > > Largely through these efforts, New.net figures that its sites are 
> accessible
> > > by about 35 percent of U.S. Internet users through at least one 
> computer they
> > > operate.
> > >
> > > However, that still leaves out about two-thirds of the Web-using 
> public. The
> > > two largest Internet service providers, AOL and MSN, for example, 
> have yet to
> > > sign on to New.net's plan. On top of that, there are the countless 
> individuals
> > > who get Internet access at work or school without a commercial ISP.
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > To unsubscribe please see http://lists.open-rsc.org
>
>Regards,
>
>--
>Jeffrey A. Williams
>Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
>CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
>Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
>E-Mail [email-masked]
>Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
>Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-roots" 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 06:35:54 -0500
From: "Jim Fleming" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fw: Billing information and EPP/GRRP-REQ

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Klaus Malorny" <[email-masked]>
To: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2001 4:02 AM
Subject: Billing information and EPP/GRRP-REQ

>
>
>
> Hi together,
> hi Scott,
>
> while digging more and more into Afilias' and NeuLevel's documents (as far
as
> they exist ;-), I was wondering whether it would be a good idea to include
> billing information in EPP responses resp. include a requirement in the
> GRRP-REQ document to provide such a feature. Yes, I know that the pricing
of
> certain actions is a registry policy, of course. Nevertheless or
especially
> for that reason it could be a good idea to have a common reporting
mechanism:
> Since a registry might introduce several grace periods (like NSI/Verisign
does
> with newly registered domains/renewed domains), in certain situations it
may
> not be quite clear to the registrar whether such a grace period applies or
> not. So for  near-registration-time accounting, it may be good if some
> information is included (I could detail this). This information should not
> make monthly reports obsolete, but could complement these.
>
>
> Klaus Malorny
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
>      |       |
>      | knipp |                   Knipp  Medien und Kommunikation GmbH
>       -------                           Technologiepark
>                                         Martin-Schmeisser-Weg 9
>      Dipl. Inf. Klaus Malorny           44227 Dortmund
>      [email-masked]             Tel. +49 231 9703 0

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 23:03:21 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> William X. Walsh
|> Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 11:21 PM
|> To: Ken Stubbs
|> Cc: [email-masked]; Jefsey Morfin
|> Subject: Re[2]: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker
|>
|> Then push for rules to address this, and see if you get enough support
|> for them.
|>
|> Don't use abusive interpretations of the existing rules just to get
|> rid of things you don't like.

2/6/2001 2:26pm
Through an arrangement reached between Registrar.com and the TLDA (somehow
linked
through the 2 GA chair types) you have been further asked never to post to
this
list again, because you have been permanently banned for mean and vicious
comments.
********

Yes I agree pretty stupid, and pretty outlandish. But are they stupid and
outlandish because of content or because the speakers would never admit to
such
truth.

#####Directed to Mr Williams.

3/6/2001 1:28pm
This is so fun, everyone needs to follow it in the sub list roots.  Come
on get to work on the sequal movie.

#####Directed to all members of the GA.

3/6/2001 4:36pm
I was privileged over the last 10 days or so to be listening or actively
involved with telephone conversations with many of the biggest
registrar-marketers of domain names in the world.  They are lousy.

#####Directed to Bruce James
3/6/2001 6:25pm
ICANN is the little Dutch boy's finger in the hole in the dike. ICANN
is not even the little dutch boy. You build it and we will come!!

#####Directed to Mr Morfin.

6/6/2001 2:10pm
Yes, gaggle or herd! Flock comes to mind and so does pod!

#####Directed to the members of the GA.

7/6/2001 1:06pm
I question authority and yet when it serves the people I give
accolades.  We all know your style Uncle Younger Please let us prepare
for when you drop your dramatic bombshell of revelations of what
occurred in the land of the Great Queen.

#####Directed to the members of the GA.

Whilst I haven't looked at the posts mentioned in the suspension notice,
looking at a few of the posts by Eric at the beginning of the month shows a
very clear pattern of posting that does not follow the rules of the list.

The rules state:
- - The messages must be relevant to the business of the GA
- - The messages must observe a minimum of decorum, including:
  - Not indulging in personal attacks, insults or slander
  - Not using offensive language.

Personally I find the majority of Eric's posts do not meet a minimum of
decorum.  I support the suspension, if not the criteria posted by the
Monitors in reaching their decision.

Although a lot of Eric's posts are tongue in cheek, they are not of a
standard acceptable to any list attempting to present a professional and
capable image.

If the GA is to be taken seriously, a professional image must be maintained
and any rules enforced.

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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:09:07 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] List Moderation - Again !!

On Wed, 20 Jun 2001 21:04:34 -0600, Earl Heather wrote:
> No moderator(s) should EVER be able to act independantly, in secret
> or without appeal.

Hi Earl

Most moderated lists have a single moderator.  For the [ga] list, no less
than five moderators have been appointed by the elected Chair.  The list
monitors are a diverse group who require consensus in their decision-making
process.  Appeals are made to the Chair.  Any dissatisfaction with these
processes can be addressed by debate among the members themselves.

Even when a person is suspended they can still post to [ga-full].  You can
subscribe to that list by sending an email to [email-masked].  Should
you do so, you will find nobody posting there who doesn't post on the main
[ga] list except perhaps for a few non-member spams.

> Public,open and transparent handling of the complaint process is what
> has been missing, allowing the process to be manipulated by a few, to
> the detriment of the list.

There is no "detriment" to the list caused by decisions of the list
monitors.  One person was suspended for a few days.  He has since been
reinstated.  Persons suspended in the past are perfectly well aware of the
list rules.  They can be found at:

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

These rules are very mild.  No personal attacks, insults or slander.  No
oversize or excessive postings (five mails per person per list per day).
Stay on topic.  Be relevant.

They were introduced after months of debate in early 2000.  A forum has been
offered for anyone who wishes to debate the rules, propose motions, promote
revisions, etc.  This is the [ga-rules] mailing list.  Nobody seems to be
very interested in re-opening the debate.

Anyone can subscribe to [ga-rules] by sending an email to [email-masked]
with the words "subscribe ga-rules" in the text part of the message (without
the quotes).

Please feel free to subscribe to [ga-rules] and debate any proposed rule
changes.  Meanwhile the list moderators will apply their independent
judgment to the best of their ability.

Best 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 23:16:27 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] (Rules)Excercising control over content of posts?

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
|> Eric Dierker
|> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2001 6:10 AM
|> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
|> Subject: [ga] (Rules)Excercising control over content of posts?
|> any stupidity.

<snip>
|> Censorship in any of it's forms is wrong.  The stifling of the quest for
|> knowledge and understanding, is one of the worst sins one man can commit
|> against another.  Our Internet should stand for the exact opposite.
<snip>

I always find it interesting that people cry out about censorship and
limiting free speech on one hand but call for list decorum and polite
behaviour from all participants on the other.

Life is not a free for all.  We all have rules that we live by.  Some
people live under far stricter rules than others.  However, in every case,
we are all bound by those rules.

If those that are claiming the suspension of Eric as being censorship wish
to really stand behind that conviction then they should also be willing to
abolish the rules of the GA Mailing List and make it truly a forum for free
speech where there are no posting limits and no means to control any
personal/public abuse that may be posted.

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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 06:23:02 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

Thank you Dassa for further pointing out the errors of my posts.  I will try
much harder to keep them in line with your way of thinking.

Eric

Dassa wrote:

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 06:40:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ADMIN] Four Week Suspension of Eric Dierker

May we please put this bad boy header thread to bed.  I will briefly state the
points it raised and considered and direct the thoughts elsewhere.

Many of my posts contain language which some find offensive.

Many of my posts attack the people that have opposing positions to mine.

The Monitor(s) were well within the given rules to suspend me.

Mr. Corliss granted me clemency in the name of the Chair.

I again apologize that my words may have offended any person.

Censorship in any form is wrong.

We want and need order on this list to get our work done.

For all interested in furthering this matter in any regard they should go to
our RULES list where I have posted two alternative methods to adapt the rules.
I certainly invite any lambasting of me and my posts there, where we can turn
them into useful examples of how to and how not to.

Thank you for your contributions to this thread, with grace will contribute to
higher learning and understanding between us all.

Sincerely,
Eric

- --
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, 21 Jun 2001 07:18:25 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] (Rules)Excercising control over content of posts?

Please join us in the GA-RULES to continue this fine discourse.  However your
points are so well put that I will respond here.

The general problem exists between two to thirty seemingly non compatible
perspectives that we all are a part of all to some degree.  I for instance am a
policy wog and my bent is that of dot commoners.  Mr. Flemming on the other
hand is a technical genius of some sort.  Some of us live and work in a world
where the *F* word is common.  Some of us would never let someone who used that
word in their house. Now throw in about 30 prevailing common languages. Mix in
some age and geographic differences. Don't forget some liberal and conservative
spice and I am sure you get the picture.

Which one of these perspectives is right and which one should be banned?  All
and None.

It is perfectly good and right that we should confront this problem at the time
we prepare to chose our representative seats.  I believe I paraphrase a quote
from  Ho Chi Minh correctly in saying *it is the diversity in people which
makes life so worth living*.

In furtherance of this I am formulating a method for appointing our choice
where one of us will be placed as our representative as the assistant to
someone to Southeast Asia, Vietnam is my obvious choice in order to get the
diversity of representativeness off to a good start. A trustee while we get
someone from there up to speed so they can kick some ***** as our
representative. ?????

Sincerely,
Eric
(sorry for the noise for those of you who dislike these non technical/legal
humanism type posts)

Dassa wrote:

> |> Censorship in any of it's forms is wrong.  The stifling of the quest for
> |> knowledge and understanding, is one of the worst sins one man can commit
> |> against another.  Our Internet should stand for the exact opposite.
> <snip>
>
> I always find it interesting that people cry out about censorship and
> limiting free speech on one hand but call for list decorum and polite
> behaviour from all participants on the other.
>
> Life is not a free for all.  We all have rules that we live by.  Some
> people live under far stricter rules than others.  However, in every case,
> we are all bound by those rules.
>
> If those that are claiming the suspension of Eric as being censorship wish
> to really stand behind that conviction then they should also be willing to
> abolish the rules of the GA Mailing List and make it truly a forum for free
> speech where there are no posting limits and no means to control any
> personal/public abuse that may be posted.
>
> 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 18:10:45 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-rules] Proposal for a Buddy Sytem for new members

I fully support that excellent proposition with some additions:

- - did I sent you more than .. let say 20 private mails? (And because we 
worked together at that time on the Centers of Interest) ... You so much 
upset me that I did stop quick and put you on filter :-)  Actually, you 
were a so promising new comer (with Sotiris, Eric, Danny..) that I did some 
buddying with you. Will never do it again! :-)

- - I proposed Patrick several time to stop promoting his ML for debate and 
to use them for self education (except ga-rules which can be of use would 
he chair it). Just a place for people to explain what they stand for, why 
they support an opinion. No debate. The subjects could make a hood thesaurus.

- - your points make a good FAQ list interested people could certainly 
comment with some humor. This is a very good suggestion.

Jefsey

On 17:41 21/06/01, Joanna Lane said:
>Eric et al,
>
>As Dassa has said, all societies have rules. You just cannot let the crazies
>go round murdering and thieving. The problem is that our rules are made to
>be applied even handedly across the board, but we are all individuals and
>not only must the punishment fit the crime, it must fit the offender.
>
>We are naive to think our rules can be anything other than unfair. To be
>fair, we must have all the same components of a real life justice system in
>coping with all situations. The answer is not simply to create more rules,
>or to abolish them altogether.
>
>Personally, I am more interested in prevention rather than cure. If the
>minimum standards of decorum are abused, I just ignore it, or use the
>filter, but the gut reaction of many, particularly new colleagues, is to
>leave. I would like to see steps taken to foster good relationships with new
>members and the following is one proven way of assisting that process.
>
>The one system I do think works well in real life groups in our society is
>the Buddy System, whereby those who join a school, club or firm etc., spend
>the first hour, day, week, or month, finding their way around with the
>assistance of a more experienced colleague, someone to whom they can refer
>privately to clarify basic questions, someone the watch out for them. There
>mere fact that a buddy exists would be enough to deter those who would
>assassinate a new member on a first post. I would offer the Buddy System as
>a volunteer program, automatically allocated from a pool of volunteer
>members at the time of joining. Obviously, new members may opt-out.
>
>Some of the issues that could be handled in this way without taking up list
>time would be:-
>
>What is the agenda for this list?
>Do the rules mean blah, blah..?
>How do I propose a motion?
>What does that acronym mean?
>Where is the White Paper?
>Where can I find more information about blah?
>Why has Mr. Morfin sent me 100 private emails? (sorry Jefsey, couldn't
>resist)
>Who is Louis Touton?
>Do you think the list would be interested in discussing this issue?
>etc..etc..
>
>I would be happy to help form such a group. Given the number of new people
>around here, it doesn't seem much of a committment. Any volunteers?
>
>Regards,
>Joanna
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 12:36:54 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [ga-rules] Proposal for a Buddy Sytem for new members

Jefsey,
on 6/21/01 12:10 PM, Jefsey Morfin at [email-masked] wrote:

> I fully support that excellent proposition with some additions:

Thank you for your support. I must acknowledge Eric, since this proposal is
related to his Mentor proposal on the ga-rules list, the difference being
the specific purpose of the Buddy System is to foster good relationships
with new members. 

> - did I sent you more than .. let say 20 private mails? (And because we
> worked together at that time on the Centers of Interest) ... You so much
> upset me that I did stop quick and put you on filter :-)  Actually, you
> were a so promising new comer (with Sotiris, Eric, Danny..) that I did some
> buddying with you. Will never do it again! :-)
>

We both understand what happened, and it is true, your private
communications did much to improve my understanding of the issues. Thank
you.

There is a difference between what I am proposing and what you like to do.
The purpose of the Buddy Program is to foster understanding, not use it as a
political platform.

Of course, we can assume that new members are bright enough to know the
difference should that occur and thank you for volunteering....:-)

Regards,
Joanna 

> - I proposed Patrick several time to stop promoting his ML for debate and
> to use them for self education (except ga-rules which can be of use would
> he chair it). Just a place for people to explain what they stand for, why
> they support an opinion. No debate. The subjects could make a hood thesaurus.
> 
> - your points make a good FAQ list interested people could certainly
> comment with some humor. This is a very good suggestion.
> 
> Jefsey
> 
> On 17:41 21/06/01, Joanna Lane said:
>> Eric et al,
>> 
>> As Dassa has said, all societies have rules. You just cannot let the crazies
>> go round murdering and thieving. The problem is that our rules are made to
>> be applied even handedly across the board, but we are all individuals and
>> not only must the punishment fit the crime, it must fit the offender.
>> 
>> We are naive to think our rules can be anything other than unfair. To be
>> fair, we must have all the same components of a real life justice system in
>> coping with all situations. The answer is not simply to create more rules,
>> or to abolish them altogether.
>> 
>> Personally, I am more interested in prevention rather than cure. If the
>> minimum standards of decorum are abused, I just ignore it, or use the
>> filter, but the gut reaction of many, particularly new colleagues, is to
>> leave. I would like to see steps taken to foster good relationships with new
>> members and the following is one proven way of assisting that process.
>> 
>> The one system I do think works well in real life groups in our society is
>> the Buddy System, whereby those who join a school, club or firm etc., spend
>> the first hour, day, week, or month, finding their way around with the
>> assistance of a more experienced colleague, someone to whom they can refer
>> privately to clarify basic questions, someone the watch out for them. There
>> mere fact that a buddy exists would be enough to deter those who would
>> assassinate a new member on a first post. I would offer the Buddy System as
>> a volunteer program, automatically allocated from a pool of volunteer
>> members at the time of joining. Obviously, new members may opt-out.
>> 
>> Some of the issues that could be handled in this way without taking up list
>> time would be:-
>> 
>> What is the agenda for this list?
>> Do the rules mean blah, blah..?
>> How do I propose a motion?
>> What does that acronym mean?
>> Where is the White Paper?
>> Where can I find more information about blah?
>> Why has Mr. Morfin sent me 100 private emails? (sorry Jefsey, couldn't
>> resist)
>> Who is Louis Touton?
>> Do you think the list would be interested in discussing this issue?
>> etc..etc..
>> 
>> I would be happy to help form such a group. Given the number of new people
>> around here, it doesn't seem much of a committment. Any volunteers?
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Joanna
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
>> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
>> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #556
************************