I was one of the ga-full subscribers. I thought it was a great mistake
not to archive it -- further institutionalizing the idea that only
approved persons could speak, and creating a santized public record. The
calculus was different for ICANN, as it's quasi-governmental in a way the
IETF is not, so what was necessary there might not be necessary here.
I sould also note that ICANN killed the ga-full list with no discussion
and essentially no notice.
The ga-full list, as used by ICANN, certainly served to silence people,
but not quite exactly in the manner described below.
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
>
> --On mandag, juni 16, 2003 12:45:34 -0600 Vernon Schryver
> <vjs@calcite.rhyolite.com> wrote:
>
> > The suggestion of having two lists, one filtered and a second named
> > whatever-noise, both with open archives, sounds fine to me, but wouldn't
> > help the ASRG case. I think that the ASRG case would be instantly
> > resolved if the moderator would publish all of the rejected messages
> > and related corresponce without any additional commentary...not that
> > I think there's any case there, but passers-by might not have seen the
> > first several weeks of traffic in the ASRG mailing list not to mention
> > those "courtesy" copies I mentioned.
>
> the ICANN DNSO GA list operated with "ga" and "ga-full" lists ("full" being
> all spam, crosspostings and postings from moderated posters in addition to
> the normal list traffic).
>
> the ga-full list was, I believe, not archived.
>
> it served to silence the complaints that it wouldn't be possible to see if
> moderation was fair or not, which richly repaid the work of setting it up -
> I think it had approximately 5 memebers.
>
> Harald
>
>
>
--
Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm
-->It's hot here.<--