Hi All, and especially Jim;-)...
I am a bit disturbed by the negative light in which Jim is casting
ORSC in this specific discussion.
The only connection between IFWP and ORSC at this moment is that
Richard has rescued the IFWP mailing list from the trash heap, and he
also happens to be the listserve admin for ORSC, because he has
arranged for it to be running on one of his computers.
I expect his question about IFWP adopting the ORSC Civil Discourse
Rule was propted by something I said about IANN setting up an ICANN
list-of-record and also suggested that it should use the ORSC Civil
Discourse Rule. Do, he picked up the idea for IFWP.
Now, in making such a suggestion, there is no implication that Richard
is part of the rule! That he has a role in administering the rule on
the ORSC list (along with Brian Reid and Dan Steinberg) has no
implications what so ever for IFWP. If IFWP wants to use the rule, it
has to select its own panel of N people to administer it. There is no
magic in the number three as used for ORSC.
So, I find all the personal degrading comments about Richard to be way
off base here, and the negative comparisons of ORSC to IFWP to also be
at least pointless, as the two lists are totally different in
character and purpose.
Of course ORSC is different. If they were not, they would have merged
long ago! They did not merge and are not and most likely will never
be the same. So this issue is entirely moot.
Now, in support of IFWP adopting the rule, I must say that Jeff and
Jim and Bob are all participants in ORSC and they have all learned to
behave themselves (more or less) as participants in that list.
Whether our ORSC Civil Discourse Rule made this happen or not is one
of the great unasked and unanswered questions. But, there is some
indication that the rule has been helpful.
What it has certainly done is curb Richard Sexton's sharp tongue, and
my own. For a time I was one fo the three "moderators" but I resigned
the position when I was accused of conflict of interest by someone who
began using the rule to see if he could destroy us with our own tools.
Our greatest problems with the rule arose during that period when
someone was testing us with grey area complaints. At that time, a big
part of the problem was that this person refused to follow the rule
and lodged all complaints in public on the main list. The rule is
(was) to lodge all complaints in private to the moderators in order to
avoid enflaming the main list discussion with discussion of the
complaint. Our detractor's objective at the time was to enflame the
discussion on the list with public discussion of his complaints.
So, I need to ask those who are arguing against use of the ORSC
Discourse Rule: "Have you read the rule?" If not, I suggest reading
it before voting for or against it. Perhaps Ricahrd can post a copy
of it to this list, as it is much shorter than any of these long
winded discussions about it.
And, since I am certain that Richard does not wish to have any role in
serving on the "moderator" panel, and neither do I, and I bet that Dan
and Brian also do not want a role on any IFWP moderation panel, I
suggest that you name your own panel members.
I would like to start the nominations list with Jonathan Zittrain, Jim
Dixon, Bill Lovell, Eric Weisberg, William X. Walsh, and Dave
Crocker...
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Sun, 31 Jan 1999 17:50:58 +0000 (GMT):
}
}On Sat, 30 Jan 1999, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
}
}> Fair enough. I honestly don't see much difference, in practice, between
}> the ORSC and IFWP lists as they stand. To apply the ORSC rules to IFWP
}> would make them even more similar. I want to know more about how ORSC
}> means to run its streetcorner, and to know whether there's an IFWP--maybe
}> it's defined as everyone willing to say he or she is a member--that could
}> have its own idea about its respective streetcorner. If people just post
}> interchangeably, why have two lists and fragment the discussions?
}
}Well, people don't post interchangeably.
}
}I repeat, the ORSC is one small faction. The IFWP achieved the closest=20
}thing to universal participation in this debate, and the closest thing
}to consensus, that I am aware of. Also, the IFWP has a very broad remit,
}and the Open Root Server Confederation has a very narrow one.
}=20
}> >The IFWP list has never had an agreed charter, but the list has certainl=
}y
}> >always been open (except of course during the peculiar period after 11=
}=20
}> >December 1998 when some people were unsubscribed). Everyone has been fr=
}ee
}> >to come and talk and so a wide spectrum of viewpoints has always
}> >been represented here.
}>=20
}> That's been my impression too--although I'm a little hesitant to say it.
}> After all, you were the one who took me to task for saying I'd try not to
}> cross-post by confining my own comments mostly to IFWP, because of that
}> "peculiar" period!
}
}I took you to task because in December the IFWP list briefly became a
}closed list, in that a significant number of the more outspoken=20
}participants were excluded from the list. This appears to have been =20
}corrected.
}
}> >Should the ORSC civil discourse rules be adopted? These require the=20
}> >appointment of three all-powerful moderators. Given the wide disparity
}> >of views represented on this list, and given the rabid dislike that=20
}> >some individuals have for each other, it's difficult to see how this=20
}> >list could agree upon who the moderators should be. Equally, I don't=20
}> >know who could be trusted to act in this role without using it to=20
}> >promote their own positions.
}>=20
}> Agreed. I do, though, also see a problem when half the messages on the
}> list are from one particular person, and anything goes in the discourse.
}
}Well, like a lot of people I use filters which neatly shunt messages=20
}from a couple of people into separate mailboxes, so I only read them
}when I feel like it ...
}
}> Selective filtering by each listreader is meant to address that, but it
}> creates fuzz when we're each essentially reading different subsets of the
}> list depending on whom we filter.
}
}I don't believe that everyone reads every posting to these lists, so
}this occurs whether you filter or not. In the old days, before I began
}filtering, I used to routinely select all of the postings from our most
}prolific writer and either save or delete them en masse. I don't think
}that I lost anything by doing so.
}
}More generally, we all filter all of the time. I get hundreds of pieces
}of email each day; many of these contain pointers to other documents,
}which in turn contain pointers to other documents, and so forth. If we
}didn't filter, we would go mad.=FA =20
} =20
}> Is there any way, architecturally, to do
}> better for discussion of the issues than what we have now?
}
}The only thing that comes to mind is the approach taken on the IETF list,
}where there are two lists, one completely open and the other pre-filtered.
}If you subscribe to the latter list instead of [EMAIL PROTECTED], you get
}everything posted to the first list LESS spam and the postings of a few
}selected individuals (including, I think, Bob, Jeff, and Jim Fleming).
}
}> >> >b) should we stick one of Ellens grey ribbons on the=20
}> >> >mailing list website ?
}> >
}> >What mailing list website?
}>=20
}> There was a url listed in Richard's first post. I think the list is
}> mirrored there for those who want to read it with a web browser. Here it
}> is--<http://lists.ifwp.org>. ...JZ
}
}To those of us who spent a lot of our time, energy, and money organising th=
}e
}IFWP, the lack of a pointer back to www.ifwp.org, the use of a different
}logo, and the description of the IFWP process are all somewhat disturbing.
}
}> Jon Zittrain
}> Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law =
}School
}> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
}> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}--
}Jim Dixon Managing Director
}VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
}---------------------------------------------------------------------------
}Member of Council Telecommunications Director
}Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
}http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
}tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
}
}
}__________________________________________________
}To receive the digest version instead, send a
}blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
}[EMAIL PROTECTED]
}
}Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
}___END____________________________________________
}
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
