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 doesn’t 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
Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44
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