[ncdnhc-discuss] Limit email sending....

[Rob Courtney]

I would feel OK with a per-day e-mail limit that's selectively 
enforced, sort of like traffic cops selectively enforce the speed 
limit. It's not a silver bullet but it is objective and fair, and if 
it doesn't work we can get rid of it.

Also, I think Alejandro's concerns about abuse can be addressed 
through clear and objective rules that might obviate the need for a 
lot of people getting involved in list management. As a straw man, 
can I suggest that all five Ad Com members be given the authority to 
independently and on behalf of the Ad Com send warnings or restrict 
posting privileges, but that they must do so publicly and must cite 
violations when they do? That way, if any mistakes are made or power 
is abused (not that I think it would be!), we can all monitor it.

A lot of the content on this list has been vituperative at times, but 
I don't see an easy way to do anything about that. With a per-day 
limit, at least the inappropriate content will be limited to a few 
messages per day.

r

At 8:20 AM -0800 11/27/01, Dave Crocker wrote:
>At 06:54 AM 11/27/2001 -0300, Raul Echeberria wrote:
>>At 03:09 p.m. 26/11/01 -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>>Does anyone not find it a bit strange that we are worrying about 
>>>the number of  posts, yet ignoring content such as personal 
>>>abusive?
>>I don't understand. Are you proposing to control the content of the 
>>emails? or what you are proposing is some kind of other rules to 
>>avoid offensive mails.
>
>Raul, I am suggesting that the problem of excessive postings is very 
>minor and the problem of abusive postings is very major.  The idea 
>that the problems of this group are due to excessive postings is 
>simply silly.
>
>Therefore, the proposal to impose a posting limit is a way of 
>PRETENDING that we are doing something meaningful, rather than 
>actually DOING something meaningful.
>
>Milton's posting on this thread demonstrates the problem in two 
>ways.  First, he thoroughly misunderstood Alejandro's proposal and 
>then he reacted violently to that (mis)understanding.
>
>Alejandro simply noted that posting control mechanisms usually have 
>multiple people in the process, both to ensure the decision is 
>shared and to cover absences of any one of the controllers.
>
>Second, Milton essentially says that the reason for limiting the 
>number of posts is because it is an easy rule to enforce.  Not that 
>it has anything to do with a real problem, but simply that it is 
>easy.
>
>There is also some irony is the ending of Milton's post.  He 
>complains about the difficulty of getting anything done because 
>everyone wants to review and modify everything.  The irony is that 
>that is exactly what he requires of ICANN, but he will not tolerate 
>even a reasonable amount of it in the constituency.
>
>Open processes are quite difficult.  Most of the people in this 
>constituency have not participated in such a process before.  They 
>resent the difficulties that come with constructive openness and 
>they resist following any of the techniques that satisfy such a 
>requirement.  Hence this group has no cohesive model of needs and 
>goals, and this group primarily relies on unaccountable, ad hoc 
>decisions by fiat and decisions in face-to-face meetings with a tiny 
>portion of the constituency present.  If we want to worry about the 
>real problems of the constituency, these are the things we should be 
>addressing.
>
>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