I believe these rules are enough to regulate the lists and to keep them effective. I would suggest a limited number of email for person by day or week. Such limit will encourage people think a little more about what they will write in order to be more objective. Reducing the amount of e mails in our box will also allow people pay more attention to each email received. This is a voluntary job, hence, we need time to work in our life and at same time keep up to date and contribute with the ALAC. The amount of email we are receiving now doesnt allow us to pay the needed attention to each message. Best, Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." _____ De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Nick Ashton-Hart Enviada em: quarta-feira, 5 de março de 2008 05:31 Para: At-Large Worldwide Assunto: [At-Large] List Posting Behaviour / Code of Conduct Dear All: Since there are many members of this list who are newer participants, and as requested, I reproduce below the relevant part of the At-Large Advisory Committee Rules of Procedure related to mailing list behaviour and postings. Rule 22 - Code of Conduct 22.1 The ALAC discussion lists and its other online collaborative spaces serve two purposes. They are where we discuss ICANN-related policy issues and attend to administrative tasks related to the management of ALAC. 22.2 Content that is acceptable in our online collaborative spaces is defined as: 22.3 Discussion on ICANN-related policy issues, 22.4 Discussion of ALAC administrative matters, 22.5 Announcements of conferences, events, or activities related to ICANN matters. 22.6 Inappropriate postings include: 22.7 Unsolicited bulk e-mail, 22.8 Discussion of subjects unrelated to ICANN policy, meetings, activities, or technical concerns, 22.9 Unprofessional commentary, regardless of the general subject, 22.10 Postings libellous being used to abuse, harass, stalk, or threaten others, 22.11 Postings that are, knowingly false, ad-hominem, or misrepresents another person, 22.12 Postings that violate an obligation of confidentiality, 22.13 Postings that violate the privacy of others, 22.14 Announcements of conferences, events, or activities that are not related to ICANN matters. 22.15 The ALAC Chair is empowered to suspend or restrict a person's posting rights when the content that person has posted is inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. The Chair defines and determines inappropriate content on a case-by-case basis. Our definitions are not limited to this list. If the Chair suspends posting rights or deletes a comment or link, he will say so and explain why. When determining the duration of the suspension, the Chair is required to take into account the overall nature of the postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an aberration or typical. 22.16 Occasionally, a participant may engage in what amounts to a "denial-of-service" attack to disrupt the consensus-driven process. Typically, these attacks are made by repeatedly posting messages that are off-topic, inflammatory, or otherwise counter-productive, and the Chair may choose to revoke the participant's posting rights. In contrast, good faith disagreement is a healthy part of the consensus-driven process. For example, if the group is unable to reach consensus, this is an acceptable, albeit unfortunate, outcome; however, if that group fails to achieve consensus because it is being continuously disrupted, then the disruption constitutes an abuse of the consensus-driven process. Interactions of this type are fundamentally different from "the lone voice of dissent" in which a participant expresses a view that is discussed but does not achieve consensus. In other words, individual bad faith should not trump community goodwill. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart@icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart
