Re: [atlarge-discuss] mailing lists

["James Love" <james.love@cptech.org>]

----- Original Message -----
: From: "Vittorio Bertola" <vb@vitaminic.net>
: I would define two different policies, one for "staff", and one for
: the "trustees".
:
: For the staff, policy is easy:
:
: "Supporting persons or staff members, who are granted access to the
: databases containing members' or other people's personal details for
: the purpose of fulfilling technical and organizational tasks, shall
: formally commit not to use such databases in whole or in part for any
: other usage, and to follow instructions approved by the panel. In
: particular, these persons will never give such databases to any other
: party, and shall never use them to contact directly a part or the
: whole of the membership and of the other people in the databases,
: unless instructed by the panel to do so.
:
: Those of such persons who are technically responsible for maintaining
: these databases will promptly supply an updated copy of them, both on
: a regular basis and on request, to the trustees appointed by the
: panel."
:
: Can this wording be ok?

     Looks ok to me.

: For the trustees (ie, Karl Auerbach & other directors) and for the
: panel members it is slightly more difficult to write the policy,
: because the reason you want these people to get this list is to let
: them use it if they feel that this effort is being "captured" or
: "tamed" by ill-intentioned members who succeed in being elected, or by
: the staff. But on the other hand, you have to avoid that, for example,
: panel members who don't agree with decisions taken by the panel use
: this list to send propaganda for their own minority positions.
:
: "Trustees (including panel members), who are granted access to the
: databases containing members' or other people's personal details for
: the purpose of preventing potential capture of the organization, shall
: formally commit not to use them in any event, unless in case these
: details are necessary to restore the organization's databases after
: their loss, theft or capture, or in case the internal rules of the
: organization are broken by some of its elected officers, staff, or
: supporting members with the purpose of illegally gaining power over
: the organization itself. Only in this latter case, the trustees are
: allowed to use these databases to contact the membership directly and
: help reconstitute the organization under its proper rules. In any
: other case, the trustees shall not use these databases to contact
: directly a part or the whole of the membership and of the other people
: in the databases, and they will never give them to any other party.
:
: Trustees are appointed by a majority vote of the panel, and must
: include at least one person who is not a member of the panel."
:
: What do you think of this?

Mostly ok, but  I thinkI would prefer to have the trustees be non-panel
members, but appointed by the panel.

   [snip]

: And one last thing: we never discussed (not even for the webmaster) if
: we had to ask them not to participate to policy discussions in the
: forums for the sake of their "super partes" role. However, I think
: that this would be excessive and neither Thomas nor Joop would accept
: it.

    I would prefer to not gag the operator.   But as a practical matter, if
someone's aggressive advocacy or infighting becomes an issue, they may not
be the most confidence building personality for this.   For example, Kent
Crispin was one of several (including me) aggressive advocates of views in
the NCC, and he seemed to me like a bad choice to run the elections, but he
was the one the NCC Adcom often chose, because the NCC Adcom thought he knew
how to do  it, and they weren't sure who else could.  There was some concern
among some that some manipulation of the elections could be an issue, and
even if people didn't understand how this might happen, it created a
distraction.    This is not a reflection on what Kent actually did, but more
the general climate of distrust in ICANN.  I hate to see so much energy
focused on who runs mailing lists, web pages or elections, but over time,
ICANN has generated a lot of mistrust, so it is part of the history, and we
have to keep that in mind.

I think if we want to make the @large work, we have to find ways to overcome
the view that there is too much in the way to personal attacks, paranoia, or
lack of respect for participants, if we want people to take the @large
seriously, *and* we have to build institutional structures that work even
then the personalities change.

  Jamie

--------------------------------
James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de