[FSFLA] IGF-DC: Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC Mailing Lists - resend with correct link

[willi uebelherr]

I deleted the pdf-file in the appendix. The link to this file is at the 
end of this email.
"<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Kk_XzJOhQt9ms-CPupcjyk18SymY0sRHtZIk926W4M/edit?usp=sharing>."

"Your mail to 'Discusion' with the subject
     IGF-DC: Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC
Mailing Lists - resend with correct link
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
     Message body is too big: 111691 bytes with a limit of 40 KB"


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: IGF-DC: Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC 
Mailing Lists - resend with correct link
Datum: Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:17:52 -0400
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: FSFla discuss <discusion at fsfla.org>
Kopie (CC): IGF dc <dc at intgovforum.org>, IGF gov 
<governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter 
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, IGF secretariat 
<igf at unog.ch>

Dear friends,

i send you a discussion thread from the IGF DC list (Internet Governance 
Forum - Dynamic Coalition) to the principles in the list-administration. 
For information i have involved some addresses from the IGF groups.

The background: After my riseup email account overflow, as a result of 
lost my documents in Paraguay after a theft of my backpack, my 
resubscribe to this list was blocked. After some try to understand, why 
i am blocked without any answer, i wrote an email to the IGF secretariat 
and the list. The group have the name IGF DC C3, means: Internet 
Governance Forum - Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity.

In the answer from Luici Belli, his long title i don't understand, but i 
know it from USA and Latin America, we know his interests:

".. (trolls) .. was one of the principal reasons why we have started to 
elaborate the document".

The background of the conflict is clear for me. Community based or 
private/state based interconnection of local network for our 
telecommunication. And the interests of all state institutions in Brasil 
and Argentina and in all Latin America are oriented to private/state 
controll.

For me, the content in this group is not important, because all the 
people in this group have another destination. More important is, that 
the IGF follow his own written principles.

And from Europe i know, if the people use the term "troll", they lost 
any base of rational argumentations. It is the same like with 
"conspiracy theory". Only war-terms, no more.

many greetings, willi
in this time: Asuncion, Paraguay


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [DC] Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC 
Mailing Lists - resend with correct link
Datum: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 10:38:08 -0700
Von: LB at lucabelli.net
An: avri at acm.org <avri at acm.org>, dc at intgovforum.org <dc at intgovforum.org>

   Dear Avri and all,  Many thanks for your work regarding the 
guidelines and apologise for missing the Monday meeting (due to work 
overload rather than lack of interest)
   I think there are two major flows in the current version that should 
be corrected before we call for consensus.

   1) The current version of the guidelines does not address the issue 
of mailing-list trolls, which (in my understanding) was one of the 
principal reasons why we have started to elaborate the document. The 
guidelines utilise the IGF Code of Conduct as a reference for 
behavioural standard. The Code does not specifically cover the issue of 
trolling. I think the reason is because the Code has been conceived to 
address face-to-face meeting and trolling is not something that could 
ever happen in a face-to-face meeting where a moderator can stop giving 
the mic to someone who “disrupts normal on-topic discussions often for 
the troll amusement” (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll 
). Hence, I fear the mere reference to the Code is not sufficient to 
address this problem. I suggest specifying the 3rd bullet-point of the 
Code, adding to the Guidelines something along these lines “For the 
purpose of these Guidelines, the mailing list administrator should 
consider as reasonable the behaviour of mailing-list the participants 
who share a moderate quantity of on-topic and non-aggressive emails.”

2) The Guidelines do not specify the date of validity of the document. 
This is an essential element of any behavioural regulation and a basic 
element of juridical certainty. This problem can be easily solved by 
adding a sentence stating something along these lines: “These Guidelines 
represent the consensus of the DC Coordination Group as of XX October 
2017 and will be in force starting from XX October 2017)

I also think we could add a sentence stating: “Any issue arising from 
the interpretation and/or implementation of these Guidelines shall be 
deferred to the DC Coordination Group that will discuss and deliberate 
on the matter, based on a rough consensus, starting from the first 
possible virtual meeting.”

I am going to add these proposed fragments to the googledoc. Hope this 
is helpful.

All the best, Luca

Luca Belli, PhD
Senior Researcher, Center for Technology & Society,
FGV Rio de Janeiro Chercheur Associé
Centre de Droit Public Comparé
Université Paris 2
Head of Internet Governance at FGV
internet-governance.fgv.br


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [DC] Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC 
Mailing Lists - resend with correct link
Datum: Tue, 5 Sep 2017 13:10:29 -0400
Von: avri doria <avri at acm.org>
An: dc at intgovforum.org

Hi,

We discussed the guidelines at our meeting this week.

During the last call we got no objections but did get a few comments.

The meeting accepted a 2 step solution:

1. Since there was no objection the guidelines could be accepted as a
base to work from.

2. Since there are some open issues, we should discuss the issues and
then, if there is consensus to do so, amend the guidelines.

As far as the open issues go, my understanding, and what was discussed
in the meeting:

A. Questions regarding suspending someones sending rights.  The current
guideline indicate that a person loses them.  This is not time bound,
though later in the guidelines there is a discussion about appealing
such a ruling - thus giving a way for someone to get the rights back.
The comment/recommendation was that a first, and possible successive
loss of posting rights be timed, for example a month or three.  If we
wish to amend the guidelines we should come up with a specific set of
steps. We should be able to develop these on the list if there is an
interest.

B. The question was asked, I think, about what happens when those
administering the guidelines do not behave well. Currently, the IGF
Secretariat remains the final authority, perhaps with guidance from this
group or the MAG when appropriate, for any extraordinary issues that may
occur on mailing lists.  Is this enough? If not, then we will also need
to craft some consensus language for an amendment.

As there were only an handful of DCs represented at the meeting, I am
putting this out for a quick call of non-objection.  Please let the list
know by the end of this week, 8 September, if you object either to the
position taken during the meeting, or to my explanation.

Thanks, avri


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: Re: [DC] Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC 
Mailing Lists - resend with correct link
Datum: Wed, 16 Aug 2017 19:11:00 -0400
Von: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr at riseup.net>
An: IGF dc <dc at intgovforum.org>

Dear Avri,

yes, this is an open and clear statement and a call to transparency for 
all admin-groups.

So, what you propose, if an admin-group of a DC-group, here the "Dynamic 
Coalition on Community Connectivity" (DC3), don't follow this basic 
principles, and also not the IGF Secretariat?

Based on the written text, this group works not IGF compatibel. In your 
text you write only about the defense of the group against individuals. 
Not about, what have the IGF secretariat to do, if the group breaks the 
IGF principles.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay


-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht --------
Betreff: [DC] Consensus all on Guidelines for Administration of DC 
Mailing Lists - resend with correct link
Datum: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 12:40:48 +0100
Von: avri doria <avri at acm.org>
An: dc at intgovforum.org <dc at intgovforum.org>

Hi,

During our last DC Coordination meeting, we discussed "Guidelines for
Administration of DC Mailing Lists" and agreed it was nearly ready for
verification by the DC Coordination Group.  What we indicated at the
time was that I would delay the consensus call a few days, it has now
been weeks, so that people could take another look at it. A few
suggested edits were made and accepted. Additionally, a comment was made
and responded to: the issue had been brought up about removal from from
the list after multiple warnings, especially in cases when that was
essentially the same as loss of membership in the DC.  The guideline was
changed from 'suspension from the list' to 'suspension of posting
privileges,' thus leaving the issue of membership separate.

Please review this document over the next 2+ weeks (until 1 September)
and let the list know if you object to these Guidelines.  Should any
objection be made that substantively changes the Guidelines, I will
restart the consensus call for 2 weeks after any changes are discussed
and made.

The document can be found at
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/14Kk_XzJOhQt9ms-CPupcjyk18SymY0sRHtZIk926W4M/edit?usp=sharing>.
A pdf is attached to this email.

Thanks, avri