I support a version of option 1 - putting a limit on the number of posts per
day.  That resolves the problem of certain individuals sending gazillions of
postings which many consider content free, but without having to impose
censorship.

auDA is a Regulatory Authority, and a logical monopoly.  As a monopoly I
believe it has a obligation to try and implement solutions that increase the
'signal to noise' ratio while trying to avoid a charge of 'refusing to
listen' by introducing barriers to participation (which is what Option 3
below would do).

Probably the best option is a hierarchy of solutions:

Step 1 - implement a limit on the number of postings per day.

If that doesn't work, move to

Step 2

If that doesn't work, move to

Step 3



Note for all those who advocate censorship (i.e. kicking other people off
the list):  You can implement your own censorship by using your email client
filters to trash unread posts from people who's posts you're not interested
in.  I object to recommendations that would result in you censoring what I
see.


Regards, Mark

Mark Hughes
Effective Business Applications Pty Ltd
effectivebusiness§pplications.com.au
www.pplications.com.au
+61 4 1374 3959



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Davies [mailto:kim§cynosure.com.au]
> Sent: Friday, 22 March 2002 12:16
> To: y
> Subject: Re: [DNS] DNS List
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> Firstly, I think this is a storm in a teacup. Every public mailing list
> I have been on had trolls or "serial pests" appearing and disrupting
> the list from time to time. Once they are gone, people will just forget
> about them after a week or two and life will just go on. I don't think
> this is a major controversy.
>
> Admittedly it happens a bit more than usual here, because we are dealing
> with topics people are passionate about. Thankfully, most people here
> actually agree. No-one except a few likes invoice-like solicitations
> from resellers, but it gets dredged up every month or so by another
> subscriber who thinks that it is wise to rehash it again.
>
> | 1.	Have the list moderated either by checking contributions before
> | they are posted or in some other way such as limiting the number of
> | posts per day for those who appear to be abusing the list.
>
> I don't favour active moderation.
>
> The list previously had a 5 post per day quota for the exact same
> reasons that it is being proposed today. However, once the offending
> parties had moved on it was more of a hindrance than a help. Only valued
> contributers were being stymied by the restriction.
>
> | 2.	Introduce some new rules for the list, the breach of which would
> | lead to removal. These might include things such as no pseudonyms, no
> | fake email addresses, no personal attacks etc. These rules would be
> | included on the application form and the submission of the form would
> | oblige the member to abide by the rules. The form would also need to
> | include an indemnity to auDA against any liability arising from comments
> | made on the list. All current participants would need to complete a form
> | as well as new ones.
>
> If an indemnity would ease any legal problems then I don't have a
> problem with it.
>
> | 3.       Cut the DNS List loose by providing a couple of weeks warning
> | that we will cease to host and thus allowing someone else to pick up the
> | responsibility if they want. Meanwhile, we would set up a new auDA
> | discussion list open to auDA members, registry, registrar and
> | re-sellers.
>
> A last resort, but as the list manager, if it came to this I would be
> happy to look for a new host and relocate it without "cutting it
> loose". As
> stupid as it gets sometimes, this list is useful.
>
> kim
> (speaking for myself)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives =>
http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (318 subscribers.)