Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #602
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST             Monday, July 9 2001             Volume 01 : Number 602

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

Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 09:22:20 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA election to designate its representative to the NC UDRP TF

DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> 
> GA Members,
> 
> The procedures and timeline for the DNSO GA election to designate
> its representative to the Names Council UDRP Task Force
> are published in:
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-UdrpTF.html
> 
> The Call for nomination of candidates to represent the GA
> to the Names Council UDRP Task Force is open now.

According to the web page, so far we have:

	Williams nominates McElroy
	McElroy nominates Williams
	Teernstra nominates Froomkin
	McElroy accepts nomination

I just nominated Lovell. Methinks the rest of you might consider whether
others should be nominated.
- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 07:26:14 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Internet Stakeholders

Is there any objection to the concept of Internet Stakeholders being any
and all users of the Internet?

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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:26:35 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA election to designate its representative to the NC UDRP TF

I gather I may be nominated by the NCC constituency, which is one reason
why I have held off accepting the nomination here.

In any case, there is an issue as to whether I'd be allowed by the NC to
serve even if elected, which is also staying my hand.  Details on this
issue can be found at http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=236

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Sandy Harris wrote:

> DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > 
> > GA Members,
> > 
> > The procedures and timeline for the DNSO GA election to designate
> > its representative to the Names Council UDRP Task Force
> > are published in:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-UdrpTF.html
> > 
> > The Call for nomination of candidates to represent the GA
> > to the Names Council UDRP Task Force is open now.
> 
> According to the web page, so far we have:
> 
> 	Williams nominates McElroy
> 	McElroy nominates Williams
> 	Teernstra nominates Froomkin
> 	McElroy accepts nomination
> 
> I just nominated Lovell. Methinks the rest of you might consider whether
> others should be nominated.
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                     -->It's very hot here.<--

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 09:34:32 -0700
From: [email-masked] (Kristy McKee)
Subject: Re: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

Yes, this certainly would help simplify the tasks of the LMC.  An automated 
system would be much more efficient than having a minimum of three people 
work to suspend or warn.

* LMC = List Monitor Committee

~k

At 11:25 PM 7/9/2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:49:35 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > The list server software should be configured to reject any post from
> > the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour period.
>
>On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:17:33 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > If the Secretariat would add a
> >
> > X-Posted-By: [email-masked]
> >
> > header to every email sent to the list (replacing
> > [email-masked] with the actual poster's address of course)
> > it would be trivial for a "Post Counter" to be run, which counts the
> > number of posts from each sender.  This could be used to generate an
> > automatic "warning" to the sender, thus providing a disincentive to
> > further posts beyond the limit.
>
>Hi William
>
>I agree that automating the cross-posting limits would solve many problems.
>In particular, it would:
>
>(1)    reduce the "crowding" effect of excess postings to the lists
>(2)    dispel any doubts and fears held by the person posting
>(3)    eliminate those complaints and so reduce the list monitors work
>(4)    save having to keep posting reminders every month or so
>
>However, I don't agree that the poster should just be sent a warning as some
>members of the list may simply ignore the warning and continue to post
>excessively.  I therefore propose that:
>
>The mailing list server software be configured for each of the various [ga]
>lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour
>period.  Any rejected post should be returned to the sender with a notice
>explaining why the post was rejected.
>
>If this suggestion can be supported, I am sure that much of the present
>debate over the rules and list monitoring would be quickly eliminated.
>
>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

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:37:24 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA election to designate its representative to the NC UDRP TF

At 09:22 AM 7/9/2001 -0400, Sandy Harris wrote:
>DNSO Secretariat wrote:
> > GA Members,
> >
> > The procedures and timeline for the DNSO GA election to designate
> > its representative to the Names Council UDRP Task Force
> > are published in:
> > http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2001.DNSO-GA-UdrpTF.html
> > The Call for nomination of candidates to represent the GA
> > to the Names Council UDRP Task Force is open now.
>
>According to the web page, so far we have:
>         Williams nominates McElroy
>         McElroy nominates Williams
>         Teernstra nominates Froomkin
>         McElroy accepts nomination
>I just nominated Lovell. Methinks the rest of you might consider whether
>others should be nominated.

         FWIW, besides McElroy, "Willliams," Lovell and Froomkin, the other 
people whose names have been put forward on this list        for the job -- 
but not yet actually nominated -- are Dan Steinberg and Rod Dixon.

Jon

- --
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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair

I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
_might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
perhaps more significant business.

Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it a
responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing thin,
and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard as
"non-productive" communications.

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Thomas
Roessler
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 5:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

On 2001-07-08 22:03:42 -0400, [email-masked] wrote:

>I took it upon myself to tabulate the comments posted to our list
>in the last month.  From June 8 to July 8 there were 1021 posts to 
>the main GA list by 62 individuals.  Six people accounted for half 
>of all the posts.

[...]

>Let us consider what our list would have been like if these
>individuals were on holiday during the last month.  We would have 
>received 502 posts from 56 people spread over 31 days (an average 
>of one post per individual about every 3-4 days).

>I have come to the conclusion that the needs of this Assembly
>might best be served by further restricting the number of 
>allowable daily postings in order to cut down on the "noise". 
>Perhaps a maximum of two posts per day per list would be sensible, 
>if vigorously enforced by our list monitors.

As you demonstrated yourself, it would be entirely sufficient to 
enforce the existing rules - at least in the case of regular 
offenses.  Just imagine what would happen if the list monitors were 
doing their work: The six people you mentioned (with the possible 
exception of Patrick) would be "on holidays", and the list traffic 
would be considerably reduced.

So there is really no actual need to further restrict the number of 
postings per day - IF the current rules are actually applied.

Note, BTW, that those who suggest "fuzzy" posting quotas (it's just 
one over the 5 posts per day) are basically just trying to push the 
posting quota up.  

Saying that minor violations (one or two postings ov er the quota) 
don't lead to sanctions is just equivalent to lifting the quota to 6 
or 7 postings per day.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 08:34:18 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Hello Peter,

Monday, July 09, 2001, 7:58:01 AM, Peter de Blanc wrote:

> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> perhaps more significant business.

Oh, but haven't you heard, all of those subjects have been segregated
off the main list too.

- -- 
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 11:47:55 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

Patrick Corliss wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:49:35 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 
> > The list server software should be configured to reject any post from
> > the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour period.

I don't think the 5 post limit is a good idea in the first place, but if
we're going to have it, then automatic enforcement seems a good idea.
 
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:17:33 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > If the Secretariat would add a
> >
> > X-Posted-By: [email-masked]
> >
> > header to every email sent to the list (replacing
> > [email-masked] with the actual poster's address of course)
> > it would be trivial for a "Post Counter" to be run, which counts the
> > number of posts from each sender.

This is unecessary, I think. The From: header has this info already.

> >  This could be used to generate an
> > automatic "warning" to the sender, thus providing a disincentive to
> > further posts beyond the limit.
> 
> Hi William
> 
> I agree that automating the cross-posting limits would solve many problems.
> In particular, it would:
> 
> (1)    reduce the "crowding" effect of excess postings to the lists
> (2)    dispel any doubts and fears held by the person posting
> (3)    eliminate those complaints and so reduce the list monitors work
> (4)    save having to keep posting reminders every month or so
> 
> However, I don't agree that the poster should just be sent a warning

Nor I.

> as some
> members of the list may simply ignore the warning and continue to post
> excessively.  I therefore propose that:
> 
> The mailing list server software be configured for each of the various [ga]
> lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour
> period.  Any rejected post should be returned to the sender with a notice
> explaining why the post was rejected.

Right. If you're going to use software to count posts, then it should reject
posts over the limit. 

The only alternative I see would be to have it notify both the user and the
monitors. Presumably this would not be a warning; the expectation should be
that the monitors would boot the user off. If not, then we have an unenforced
rule. If they do suspend such users, then I think the penalty is excessive.
Better to just stop the over-posting rather than kicking people out.
 
> If this suggestion can be supported, I am sure that much of the present
> debate over the rules and list monitoring would be quickly eliminated.

A problem then is what to do about people who bypass the software in the
obvious way by using multiple addresses.
- --
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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:49:01 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

On 2001-07-09 23:25:58 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:

>However, I don't agree that the poster should just be sent a 
>warning as some members of the list may simply ignore the warning 
>and continue to post excessively.  I therefore propose that:

>The mailing list server software be configured for each of the 
>various [ga] lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 
>within a 24 hour period.  Any rejected post should be returned to 
>the sender with a notice explaining why the post was rejected.

>If this suggestion can be supported, I am sure that much of the 
>present debate over the rules and list monitoring would be quickly 
>eliminated.

Send code.  What you describe is not a standard feature of 
majordomo, thus it's more than just reconfiguring the list server.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
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, 10 Jul 2001 02:16:38 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [alsc-announce] Outreach Meeting on August 13 in Santa Clara, California, USA

Members, General Assembly

I believe it is important that all members are kept informed of what is
happening with the At-Large Study Committee.  I am subscribed to ALSC
ANNOUNCE and have received four emails in the last four months.  Some other
members will have done the same.

However, I am sure that most of the 300 members not have subscribed to this
announcement facility and will have missed these postings.  If so, they will
have missed out.  A similar situation arises with ICANN ANNOUNCE which I
have re-posted to [ga] on many occasions.

I attach a copy of the latest ALSC announcement for your information.  It
seems to me that it would be convenient to ask the DNSO Secretariat to
subscribe the [ga] list.  We would then get all mails automatically.  The
volume of both *announce* mailouts is very low.

Unless members of the [ga] list are strongly opposed to the idea, I propose
that we subscribe the [ga] list to these two "announce" lists.  That way we
can be sure of getting the posts.  It is also very useful for them to be
incorporated into the list archives.

I'd appreciate any comments members might have.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: <[email-masked]>
To: ALSC Announcement List <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, July 08, 2001 5:27 AM
Subject: [alsc-announce] Outreach Meeting on August 13 in Santa Clara,
California, USA

*********************************************************************
Meeting notice: the At-Large Study Committee (ALSC) will hold an
Outreach Meeting in Silicon Valley (Santa Clara, California, USA,
address to be announced) on Monday, August 13 from 4:00 p.m.  - 8:00
p.m.  All interested individuals are welcome and encouraged to
participate.  If you are unable to attend, please send your
thoughts/questions to us in an email via our on-line forum at
<http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml> or send them to
<[email-masked]>.  Next scheduled ALSC Outreach Meeting
will be on September 7 in Montevideo, Uruguay.
********************************************************************

>>>You are receiving this message because you signed-up for the<<<
>>>ALSC "announce" list.<<<

The ALSC will soon be issuing initial statements/proposals for your
consideration and input.  These documents, and the future of ICANN and
how it should represent the global "user community," will be the focus
of the ALSC's August 13 meeting in Silicon Valley.  The meeting will
feature a panel discussion moderated by Dan Gillmor, Technology
Columnist, San Jose Mercury News, and will include all members of the
ALSC.

Additional information on the meeting will be emailed to you and will be
available soon on our website at <http://www.atlargestudy.org>.

All interested individuals are encouraged to participate in this
meeting.  If you are unable to be there in person, please send your
thoughts/questions to us in an email via our on-line forum at
<http://www.atlargestudy.org/forum.shtml> or send them to
<[email-masked]>.

Also, please note that the ALSC has scheduled an Outreach Meeting for
September 7 in Montevideo, Uruguay, prior to ICANN's Board meeting.

We look forward to hearing from you!

The At-Large Study Committee: Carl Bildt (Chair), Chuck Costello (Vice
Chair), Pierre Dandjinou, Esther Dyson, Olivier Iteanu, Ching-Yi Liu,
Thomas Niles, Oscar Robles, and Pindar Wong (Vice Chair).

- --
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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 18:30:24 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

Hello Patrick,

Patrick Corliss wrote on 09.07.01, 23:25:58:
> The mailing list server software be configured for each of the various [ga]
> lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour
> period.  Any rejected post should be returned to the sender with a notice
> explaining why the post was rejected.

The subject is a bit misleading, but the idea is
/very/ nice (thanks, William) and by far superior 
to the current system (complaint to GA-abuse, Monitor1 
prepares complaint, Monitor2 agrees and sends notice to
DNSO Secretariat, Secretariat implements suspension).
At least we could rid of /that/ part of the debate over 
the rules! 

Sandy mentioned multiple addresses: According to the
list rules, only GA members using the email address by 
which they are known to the GA list may post. Subscribing
with multiple e-mail accounts to circumvent the posting
limit filter is a violation of the rules.
Cf. http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
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, 10 Jul 2001 02:47:35 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair

> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the
> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it
> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,
> perhaps more significant business.
>
> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it a
> responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing thin,
> and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard as
> "non-productive" communications.

Thank you, Peter.  It has been my view from day one, expressed many times,
that the substantive debate too easily gets diverted by discussion of rules
and procedures.  It was for that very purpose that I asked Danny to set up
[ga-rules] and other special purpose lists.

Since then I have found it very difficult to persuade some people to comply.
My requests to do so have prompted further debate on rules, lists and powers
of your elected persons.  Note I even need to be careful saying "officials"
or "representatives" as this would undoubtedly spark more debate.

So we have come to a fork in the road.  I cannot press the issue further.
We must all agree to discuss procedural issues on [ga-rules].  We have
discussed enough.  I therefore propose the following motion for a vote of
the full General Assembly.

(1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.

(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
above.

I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?

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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 10:05:22 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [Fwd: Automated Cross Posting Limits]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
- --------------9F101788460F6410E48118B3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Re-posted here at the request of the Alternate Chair.

Bill Lovell

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --------------9F101788460F6410E48118B3
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 08:47:28 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Organization: Cerebalaw
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
CC: Vany Martinez <[email-masked]>, Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>,
 	Peter de Blanc <[email-masked]>, Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>,
 	Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>, [email-masked],
 	"Marilyn Cade, ATT" <[email-masked]>,
 	"Leah Gallegos, JandL" <[email-masked]>,
 	"Bruce James, swbell" <[email-masked]>,
 	Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>,
 	Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>,
 	Kristy McKee <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Automated Cross Posting Limits
References: <047a01c1087b$abb74980$b33efea9@hamza>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Excellent idea, William, and improved upon by Patrick's
suggestion. The server has a clock, of course, and can
determine the time periods without regard to the location
and time zone of the sender. A person goes past 5, and
they get it returned. No subjectivity, no appeals, no
nuthin'.  (I'm assuming that the clock would not be put
on ga-full -- the place to complain, methinks.) It was for
those kinds of tasks that computers were invented,
wasn't it?  :-)

We're discussing the limit of 5/24, but the heading refers
to "cross posting." The server could be programmed to
preclude that as well, or indeed to route a  post to the
list on which the subject was first raised, which would
preclude people -- no names, please -- from list hopping
unless they took the trouble to edit the subject line.
(A bit far out, I'll admit, but maybe worth thinking about.
But maybe not.)

And imagine the bandwidth spared because we'd all be
done discussing this issue.  I say start it up -- not to be
meddled with for at least 3 months, and let's see how it
works.

My congratulations to both William X. Walsh and to
Patrick Corliss -- and to Kristy McKee and anyone
else whom I've not noticed who may have added to
the idea.

Bill Lovell

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> This will solve much a the problem.
>
> I'd appreciate some support.  Perhaps even a second ?
> Thank you kindly
>
> Patrick
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> To: William X. Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [ga] <[email-masked]>
> Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 23:25:58 +1000
> Subject: Automated Cross Posting Limits
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 03:49:35 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> > The list server software should be configured to reject any post from
> > the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour period.
>
> On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 04:17:33 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
> > If the Secretariat would add a
> >
> > X-Posted-By: [email-masked]
> >
> > header to every email sent to the list (replacing
> > [email-masked] with the actual poster's address of course)
> > it would be trivial for a "Post Counter" to be run, which counts the
> > number of posts from each sender.  This could be used to generate an
> > automatic "warning" to the sender, thus providing a disincentive to
> > further posts beyond the limit.
>
> Hi William
>
> I agree that automating the cross-posting limits would solve many problems.
> In particular, it would:
>
> (1)    reduce the "crowding" effect of excess postings to the lists
> (2)    dispel any doubts and fears held by the person posting
> (3)    eliminate those complaints and so reduce the list monitors work
> (4)    save having to keep posting reminders every month or so
>
> However, I don't agree that the poster should just be sent a warning as some
> members of the list may simply ignore the warning and continue to post
> excessively.  I therefore propose that:
>
> The mailing list server software be configured for each of the various [ga]
> lists to reject any post from the same sender over 5 within a 24 hour
> period.  Any rejected post should be returned to the sender with a notice
> explaining why the post was rejected.
>
> If this suggestion can be supported, I am sure that much of the present
> debate over the rules and list monitoring would be quickly eliminated.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm

- --------------9F101788460F6410E48118B3--

- --
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, 10 Jul 2001 03:28:22 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Automated EXCESS Posting Limits

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 17:49:01 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
WAS Subject: Re: [ga] Automated Cross Posting Limits

> Send code.  What you describe is not a standard feature of
> majordomo, thus it's more than just reconfiguring the list server.

Hi Thomas

Thank you for that.

Perhaps we can agree in principle and then work out how to achieve it.  I
believe that some members may have the technical capability to do the job.
Another alternative is to switch from Majordomo to another form of mailing
list software with better features.

BTW I meant "excess posting limits" not "cross posting limits"

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: Mon, 9 Jul 2001 13:51:35 -0400
From: "Peter de Blanc" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List I'll second that

I second PatricK's motion!

Peter de Blanc

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Patrick
Corliss
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2001 12:48 PM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: [ga]
Subject: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001 10:58:01 -0400, Peter de Blanc wrote:
Subject: RE: [ga] Motion to the Chair

> I agree with these comments. If only there were some way to move the 
> discussion of "procedures", and "suspensions" off the "ga" list, it 
> _might_ be possible to discuss issues like UDRP, LDRP, .ORG and other,

> perhaps more significant business.
>
> Personally, I devote a lot of time to the ICANN process. I consider it

> a responsibility to read the "ga" list- but my patience is wearing 
> thin, and it is taking too much time out of each day for what I regard

> as "non-productive" communications.

Thank you, Peter.  It has been my view from day one, expressed many
times, that the substantive debate too easily gets diverted by
discussion of rules and procedures.  It was for that very purpose that I
asked Danny to set up [ga-rules] and other special purpose lists.

Since then I have found it very difficult to persuade some people to
comply. My requests to do so have prompted further debate on rules,
lists and powers of your elected persons.  Note I even need to be
careful saying "officials" or "representatives" as this would
undoubtedly spark more debate.

So we have come to a fork in the road.  I cannot press the issue
further. We must all agree to discuss procedural issues on [ga-rules].
We have discussed enough.  I therefore propose the following motion for
a vote of the full General Assembly.

(1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to
DNS
policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures,
etc. should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES
may, by consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative
ballot.

(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of
(1)
above.

I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?

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

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 20:44:53 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Moving Discussion Off the GA List

Seconded.

On 18:47 09/07/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>(1)    The GA list should be reserved for substantive issues relating to DNS
>policy.  All debate relating to rules, lists, protocols, procedures, etc.
>should be debated on GA-RULES.  However, subscribers to GA-RULES may, by
>consensus, refer issues to the full GA for a determinative ballot.
>(2)    The list rules should be amended to include the exact wording of (1)
>above.
>I would appreciate this being agreed to.  Do I have a second?
..

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 21:15:22 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] TLD Board committee

I understand there is a Board committee underway to review TLD attribution 
issues?
Is there anyone aware?
Jefsey

- --
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: Mon, 09 Jul 2001 15:38:25 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Motion to the Chair

Bill,

Here's another example of how confusion with the process is eating up time
and bites. Not wishing to single Joop out, but according to our BEST
PRACTICES Draft Document, this would be deemed a PROPOSAL, not a MOTION, and
therefore not at a stage to create an expectation of moving forward for a
VOTE, even if it is seconded.

Sandy also makes a valid point about criteria for VOTING, which again, is
clarified by the DEFINITIONS and FLOWCHART. All this tells me that the time
is right to post something onlist, so others are aware there is something of
value forthcoming that could solve a lot of these problems.

What do you think? 

Regards,
Joanna

on 7/8/01 12:27 AM, Sandy Harris at [email-masked] wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
>> The bandwidth of this GA is being wasted to the point that I fear many
>> subscribers have stopped reading most postings.
> 
> Yes.
> 
>> MOTION
>> I would like to request your instruction to the list monitors that ,
>> instead of judging and sentencing rulebreakers themselves , they are
>> authorized by the Chair to pass on names of offenders (people they get
>> repeated ga-abuse complaints about) to a List Polling Officer, who will put
>> up these names for an ostracism vote by the participants.
>> END OF MOTION
> 
> Everyone is authorised to use a killfile. If you think a particular person's
> postings are rubbish, or they are posting far too often, just put them in
> your killfile and stop reading them. If enough of us do that, they are
> ostracised.
> 
> This implies, I think, that monitors need only deal with things that cannot
> reasonably be handled by killfile. We probably still need monitors to deal
> with extreme personal attacks, but not much else.
> 
> I haven't found it necessary to killfile anyone here yet, though I admit
> some folks tempt me.
> 
> Methinks your motion is absurd. We need less off-topic stuff, less backbiting,
> and less of the illusion that votes in a self-selected non-representative
> group are meaningful. I think your motion would mean more of all those.
> --
> 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 #602
************************