[apnic-talk] Re: PAB Opens Mailing List
Hi David,
Here is a posting about open lists,
due process, and the public good.
FYI & FWIW.
Jay.
>Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 00:31:54 -0400
>To: Kent Crispin <kent at songbird dot com>
>From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
>Subject: Re: PAB Opens Mailing List
>Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, pab at gtld-mou dot org,
> gtld-discuss at gtld-mou dot org
>
>At 10:24 PM 5/23/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>>On Sun, May 24, 1998 at 12:38:32AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>> >> Apparently the PAB now has an readable
>>> >> archive of their mailing list. Only the recent
>>> >> entries are included.
>>> >
>>> >The PAB voted to open the list archive as of Jan 1. This is
>>> >relatively old news --
>>>
>>> This might be old news to you, but it certainly is new
>>> news to me. More importantly, making a list archive
>>> readable is not the same thing as making a mailing list
>>> open.
>>>
>>> One of the reason's that the Internet community desires
>>> open and transparent processes is so that all sides in a
>>> controversy may have an equal opportunity to state their
>>> position. In other words, you are more likely to hear
>>> opposing points of view on an *open* list.
>>
>>Indeed. That is why gtld-discuss exists. The PAB list is for PAB to
>>conduct its business, and is the means by which PAB votes.
>
>
>I fail to see why one precludes the other . . .
>
>I am reminded of the history of C-SPAN. C-SPAN began
>cablecasting the U.S. House of Representatives on March 19,
>1979. The Senate, however, resisted broadcasting their
>proceedings for over seven years.
>
>As I remember it, the Senators were concerned that it would
>impact their abilities to do what Senators do if the people
>they *represented* could see them doing it :-)
>
>To make a long story short, on June 2, 1986 the Senate
>finally allowed their proceedings to be televised. No
>major disruptions occurred, and in fact, many suggest
>that we now have better government because of it.
>
>What concerns me about your statement is the implication
>that because business and voting occur on a list, people
>who are interested in its proceedings should be excluded.
>And just like the Senators quickly realized, I believe
>these restrictions are unfounded.
>
>With the pending release of the White Paper, we will
>hopefully have some answers to the following questions
>on Internet governance:
> - who will have authority for what.
> - what legal jurisdiction(s) will be used to resolve
> conflicts.
> - what coordinated functions will be managed for the
> public good.
>
>IMHO, those functions that are being managed for the public
>good *MUST* have open processes. Unfortunately, we seem to
>be moving in the opposite direction.
>
>Over the last couple of days, we have seen some of the
>organizations that currently manage Internet resources
>take actions to quiet dissenting voices on their lists.
>
>While there may be occassions where this is warranted, I do
>object to the lack of due process that was used. Without a set
>of list standards <like http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/>,
>any actions taken against any individual may be considered
>arbitrary and biased, and potentially unfair.
>
>In closing, if PAB really wants to evolve to become the Policy
>Advisory Board to the new Name Council (if that should come to
>pass), I suggest that it become more inclusive with a more open
>list.
>
>Given the technical skills available in this community, there
>is no reason why we can't use Internet techonology to provide
>for a free and open flow of information. Let's work together
>to make *Internet* governance the *best* governance the world
>has ever known.
>
>
>Regards,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc.
>404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com
>
* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List *
* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic dot net *