>You are certainly welcome. However, there are some serious flaws in
>those rules.
>
>First, in rule 2:
>
> The moderation is intended to be light and tolerant, and it does
> not mean pre-vetting of messages by the moderator(s). In cases of
> abuse, it can mean a call for partial or total ostracism, delivered
> by democratic majority vote by the IDNO members on this list.
>
>This rule is a perfect setup for the "tyranny of the majority". It
>means that 51% of the list members can throw out the other 49%, and
>it further means that there is no individual right of free expression
>or minority dissent. This rule is great for a fraternity house, but
>not acceptable for a democratic organization. Democracy is far more
>than just votes -- it also requires guaranteed rights for individuals
>that cannot simply be overturned by a majority vote.
Kent, this is the last time that we discuss your peculiar notions of
democracy as applied to others than your own group. We have gone over this
before.
ICANN in its wisdom decided to divvy up the stakeholders in the DNS into
constituencies.
The consequence is indeed that each constituency has to use majority vote
to protect its interest, especially during the formation stage. Tyranny of
the majority, as you call it, is a lesser evil than tyranny of 2 or 3 rogue
list invaders, who claim the right to violate list rules as they please,
and who can sabotage a constituency formation.
Does ISOC gives rights to "observers"? Does the POC list? PAB?
A simple
>majority vote, structure this way, is an invitation for abuse. I
>note, interestingly enough, that you are calling for a vote to
>ratify these rules, a vote by that same 51%.
>
>Second, in rule 3:
>
> This means: absolutely no reposting of private messages. It also
> means: no reposting of list messages elsewhere without permission
> of the author.
>
You leave something essential out, Kent.
It says: Observe normal netiquette. This means, absolutely no reposting of
private messages.
>Rules about private messages are completely irrelevant for a mailing
>list.
>
Netiquette is far from irrelevant. Posting private mail in public is rude
and upsets people.
About the rest of your comments:
The rule about crossposting list messages says not to crosspost *without
permission of the author* .
If the list message was deemed so important that you feel the dnso or ifwp
could'nt do without it, all you had to do to comply with the rules is *ask
the author's permission*.
Yes, the rules are posted to the website, following your own suggestion to
prevent people like yourself to claim they didn't know them.
Yes, they will be voted on and if the majority wants changes, they will be
changed.
What a waste of time to argue about totally normal list rules. Most lists
don't have the voting option and the participants simply abide by the
listowners' reasonable wishes.
You could also question the list rules of the dnso list. Why only the IDNO?
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org
-- This message was sent via the idno mailing list. To unsubscribe send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno" to listmanager@radix.co.nz. For more information about the IDNO, see http://www.idno.org/