[ncdnhc-discuss] Membership eligibility for chapters

[Barbara Simons]

At the end of his note below Dave Crocker complains that
the proposal to limit the number of daily postings amounts to
an "illegal disenfranchisement".  Mr. Crocker has a strange
notion of disenfranchisement.  No one is saying that he may
not speak, only that he may not so dominate the conversation
that others are in effect disenfranchised by not being able to
deal with all the emails being generated.  Being driven off the
list because of a lack of time or resources to deal with
mega-posters such as Mr. Crocker is a form of disenfranchisement.

Mr. Crocker may find it hard to believe that some of us have other
concerns in our lives besides ICANN and are even on other email lists.
The lists that I really pay attention to are those on which people
are sensitive to the needs of others and refrain from making an
excessive number of postings.  If that type of self discipline existed
on this list, then we would not need to establish a daily posting limit.

Sadly, it does not.  Therefore, I strongly support the proposal to
limit the number of daily postings to two per person per day, with
a somewhat larger number allocated to members of the adcom.

A positive side effect could be that the quality of the postings is
increased as people find themselves having to give careful thought
to how they will use their allotted daily emails.

Regards,
Barbara

Dave Crocker wrote:

> At 11:15 PM 11/26/2001 -0500, KathrynKL at aol.com wrote:
> >What you have done to our list is sad.  You feel the unilateral right to
> >post over ten messages a day to this list -- creating a level of
> >harassment and noise that has driven many members who care about the
> >issues pending before ICANN -- off our list.  You have done the NCC a
> >great disservice.
>
> Kathryn,
>
> While I appreciate the idea of having such power, apparently you have not
> noticed that the problems persist whether I post or not.
>
> It is also is difficult to imagine your criteria for assessing who does the
> harassing.  How is it that you find persistent postings about relevance,
> process and pragmatics to be harassment, yet you find constant personal
> abuse and a complete disdain for due process not to be?
>
> On reflection, though, it is not surprising that you would be concerned
> with the number of postings, rather than their content.  I seem to recall
> that your reaction to being told of documents we could use as a basis for
> our own procedures was to declare that you did not have time to read
> them.  Too many pages, no doubt.
>
> There is some small humor in the irony that all this uncivil behavior is
> being self-righteously done in the name of civil society goals.
>
> >Our NCC charter language is below.  It has been accepted; it is the
> >language of this Constituency.
>
> Thank you for regurgitating a few lines from our charter.
>
> The question was asked in the hope of eliciting something a bit more
> substantial, or at least more useful.
>
> >interests, and Business Constituency as well.  It is time to move on to
> >the substantive matters at hand.
>
> Oh please, yes.  Let's get back to illegal disenfranchisement, shall we?
>
> d/
>
> Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss