This relates both to the ethics discussion and the copyright questions
that came up recently. This new Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) is
to be added, if approved, to the Judges-L FAQ that serves as a Welcome
message. The Judges' List has rather special requirements, so this
might not be applicable to other lists. The rest of the FAQ is attached
to give some context. Comments welcome.
================= New Judges-L FAQ =======================
Can a message that has appeared on the Judges-L be
reposted?
Only your own words can be reposted and only by you.
Authors retain a non-exclusive non-transferable copyright
on their own writing sent to the List. The only "fair use"
is no use at all.
Privacy of messages sent to the List is crucial for the
List to be able to perform its conflict resolution
functions. Privacy makes uninhibited expression more
likely, thus aiding in fact finding and resolution of
disputes. It also protects authors from having their words
used out of context. Finally, it inhibits persons not
satisfied with a List decision from taking their complaints
to another forum. The ability to achieve a final resolution
of conflict is one of the major advantages of a judicial
ruling.
The non-exclusive transfer of copyright to the List
Registrar ensures that the author can continue to use the
words they have sent to the List, while at the same time
those words can be used in a well controlled manner, for
example, in an opinion issued by Judges-L. This is
essential to the function of the List, since a participant
in a dispute might try to block publication of an opinion
by asserting copyright over crucial writing, if not pleased
with the decision.
The non-transferability of the copyright retained by the
author makes it impossible for List policy to be
circumvented by a (legal) person who collects copyrights
from various authors. It also ensures that only persons
bound by the List copyright policy can use material sent to
the List in other contexts. This could also be crucial in
stopping misuse of writing sent to the List.
There is no "fair use", because "fair use" permits the
circumvention of List policy. First, messages to the list
may only contain a few lines, so the normal definition of
fair use, would, in reality, permit copying of an entire
document, or at least the wording added by the author in a
follow-up to a previous message. Second, repeated "fair
use" of even a single line could easily lead to the entire
message being transferred beyond control of the List. That
is, if different lines of a message were transferred under
"fair use", one line at a time to another forum, the
original message could easily be assembled from the machine
readable fragments so transferred.
"Fair use", of materials explicitly made public by Judges-L
is permitted, provided the source is cited and copyright
statement is reproduced in full.
Any subscriber posting messages to the Judges-L is bound by
this copyright policy. Material posted by others falls
under a Judge-L compilation copyright. Writing by persons
not posting to the List themselves is covered by a
compilation copyright held by the sender and the List, and
subject to the same restrictions, where ever applicable, as
original writing. The terms "writing" and "words" are
construed to include all forms of expression subject
copyright, such as drawings, recorded sounds, and so on.
External archives of Judges-L messages and opinions can
only be maintained if explicit written permission is given.
Subscribers may, however, maintain archives of messages
they had received while subscribed to the List, but only
for their own private use.
======================================================
Welcome to Judges-L
The following Frequently Asked Questions with answers are
designed to assist you in interacting with other subscribers
to the Judges' List and thereby assist users of the NetNews
system in dealing with certain types of abusive messages.
Please do not post to the List until you have been a
subscriber for a couple of weeks, so you can avoid the most
common mistakes made by new subscribers. Alternatively you
can review the activities of the List by retrieving archives
of recent discussions. You can retrieve the list of archives
by sending "INDEX Judge-L" (not including quotation marks)
to [log in to unmask] (or [log in to unmask]).
You can then order these files with a "GET Judge-L
LOGxxxx". For example, to get the first month's archive, send
the command "GET JUDGES-L LOG9409" to retrieve the archive
for September of 1994.
You can unsubscribe by sending the command "UNSUB JUDGES-L"
in the body of a message to [log in to unmask] (or
[log in to unmask]).
Please retain this message for future reference.
-------------------------------------------------
Judges-L: Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is the Judge-L?
The Judges' List ([log in to unmask] or JUDGES-
[log in to unmask]) is a LISTSERV mail distribution list. Messages
for distribution must be sent to one of these addresses.
Subscription and other LISTSERV commands must be sent to
[log in to unmask] or [log in to unmask]
How does the Judges' List work?
The List distributes messages to a panel of Judges who cancel
multiple posts to NetNews immediately. The List is used to
help Judges organize themselves, finalize policy, and set
procedures to enforce rules. It is primarily directed to
those who issue cancels. Secondarily, to those who survey
cancels issued, in order to ensure that the cancel facility
is not being abused. General policy discussion is conducted
in the USENET newsgroup news.admin.policy. A periodic post in
that newsgroup gives the current policy consensus.
In is not the intention of the Judges to regulate the content
of articles posted. The protection of the NetNews system from
overload by posts to multiple newsgroups is the focus of the
activity. Widespread posting of off-topic material and
overloads of individual newsgroups is a secondary focus of
discussion.
Mechanisms for the control of automatic posting software or
automatic cancellation software is within the scope of
discussion. Security mechanisms to facilitate the
cancellation of abusive posts is also within the scope of the
List.
Certain activities, such as voting, are restricted to
registered Judges. The List Registrar must confirm that a
Judge is registered when requested to do so. A Judge
registers by supplying verifiable identity information to the
Registrar. This information must be traceable to a primary
identification document, such as a birth certificate.
Supplied information is used only for the registration of a
Judge. A digital signature, signed by a recognized
certification authority can satisfy this requirement. The
Registrar will acknowledge that certification has succeeded.
Another option is transmission of a verifiable name, address,
and telephone number (including best times to telephone). Any
finger, X.500 directory, or Network Information Center
entries, should also be supplied, in order to reduce the need
for telephonic contact (use the form at the end of this
post). Random checks may be undertaken from time to time to
confirm the integrity of registration information. The List
Registrar is currently David S. Stodolsky at address:
[log in to unmask]
How are decisions made?
There are two types of messages distributed via the List. The
first type is an informational message. The second type is an
action message, which notifies readers that an official
response is requested or pending. A response to a previous
message must begin with the characters "Re: " (note the
trailing space). A message that starts a new discussion must
not start with these characters.
Action messages must be indicated by a message subject that
starts with all capital letters. Current message subject
precursors are:
:"COMPLAINT: " - a complaint about a message that someone
wants cancelled
:"CANCEL: " - a complaint about an inappropriate cancel
message
:"DRAFT: " - a request for preliminary input on a proposed
action
:"OPINION: " - a proposed action not directly related to a
complaint
:"ACCEPTED: " - an accepted action
Decisions are preferably reached by consensus. The consensus
is indicated by at least one week passing after an action
message, or the last comment on an action message, has been
distributed. Thus, if an OPINION message is posted and no
comments are made in response to it for a week, it is
considered to have achieved a consensus. The message will
then be redistributed in exactly the same form, but with the
ACCEPTED message precursor. If no objections are registered
within a week, then this opinion becomes valid. (Objections
at this stage can only be procedural, such as failure to
incorporate corrections or not allowing adequate time for
comments.) If comments are received, they must be answered or
incorporated into the accepted message. In the case of
extensive revision, the message should be distributed again
with an OPINION message precursor. Accepted messages are
transferred to the file area for permanent storage. Accepted
opinions are also posted to USENET with "Judges" as their
sender.
In the case that a consensus is not reached within three
weeks after the final posting of an action message, the
author of the message can call for a vote. After the call,
the List Registrar will post the email addresses of
registered voters. A voter is registered if s/he supplied
certification information to the Registrar prior to the first
presentation of the action item. Votes are directed to the
author, or other designated vote counter, and may include a
statement. After a week, all votes and comments are posted.
If a complaint achieves majority support, it can be reposted
as ACCEPTED. Contributed statements must be included.
Opinions require two-thirds support to achieve acceptance.
Do I have to wait a week before acting on a complaint?
No. Any Judge can act on a complaint at any time. The List
and the person who submitted the complaint must be notified
immediately. If a complaint receives no response, it is
assumed to be invalid. A week after the final comment on a
complaint, it may be reposted, including all comments, with
an "ACCEPTED: " subject precursor. This is normally done by
the Judge who initially responded to the complaint. Unless
there are objections, it is transferred to the file area one
week later. A Judge must not be the first respondent to a
complaint submitted on her/his behalf.
A Judge should only respond to a complaint if confident that
the response is appropriate. New Judges can develop their
reputations by closely monitoring the List. This permits
routine abuse to handled promptly by new Judges. More
experienced Judges can then concentrate on handling
complicated complaints or on incorrect responses made by
novices.
What is the correct style for a message?
Messages to the List must follow USENET guidelines. See
"Guidelines for posting on Usenet" and "Hints on writing
style for Usenet" in the newsgroup "news.announce.newusers".
Specifically, spell check your message and review it for
accuracy. If you are irritated or upset, put it aside for a
day, and then read both the message you are replying to and
your response again. All messages to the List are archived
and permanently available to subscribers.
What should I do about inappropriate messages?
Faulty or inappropriate messages should be ignored. You may
notify the sender directly by email that there is a problem
with such a message.
Since action items cannot be ignored, inappropriate messages
of this type may result in censure of the sender. When in
doubt as to the type of a message you are sending, do not use
an action precursor. If it definitely is an action message,
post it using the "DRAFT: " message precursor first, and
allow at least a week for feedback. Draft messages should be
used in all cases except where time is of the essence.
Posting of a draft message immediately fixes the registered
voters on the item, but reduces the risk of repeated updates
while in the "OPINION: " phase. Since opinion messages
require responses within a week, it is more likely that the
feedback to them will be negative and will be less complete
than feedback to a draft.
What if I do not follow these guidelines?
Failure to provide certification information can result in
unsubscription without notice, if there is an incident
related to List security. Any person who provides false
certification information will be prohibited from any use of
the List for a period of five years and their postmaster,
employer, or service provider will be notified thereof.
If you abuse the List you may be asked to stop sending
messages for a period of six months, by issuance of an
opinion. If you fail to honor this request, then your
messages will be automatically rejected for a period of one
year. An abuser may reapply after that time by sending a
request to Dimitri Vulis ([log in to unmask]). In extreme cases,
abusers will be unsubscribed from the List for a one-year
period. Further problems will result in an abuser's
postmaster being notified, or if the abuser is a postmaster,
the notification will go to an employer or service provider.
The Judges reserve the right to counter any continuing abuse
of the List without further notice.
Severe abuse can result in immediate action by a List Owner
or Site Administrator. The Judges' List must be notified when
any such action is taken.
How do I request censure of a Judge?
A registered Judge can submit an OPINION message to the List
requesting that an abusive Judge cease, for example, sending
to the List. Alternatively, the message can be directed to
the Registrar, who will post it to the List, confirming that
the message was submitted by a registered Judge, who wishes
to remain anonymous. Other comments on the case may be
directed to the Registrar if authors wish to remain
anonymous. Only comments by registered Judges will be
forwarded to the List. In the case that a vote becomes
necessary, the Registrar will randomly select nine registered
Judges, if that many are available. They will be privately
requested to deliver their votes to a designated Vote
Counter. If three-fourths of the votes support the request,
it will be posted as an ACCEPTED opinion by the Vote Counter.
Dimitri Vulis ([log in to unmask]) will receive such votes, until
further notice.
How is conflict of interest avoided in censure cases?
Any selected Judge directly involved in the dispute must
notify the Registrar that they are not available to vote. In
the case this withdrawal could affect the vote outcome, a new
registered Judge will be randomly selected. The accused may
advise the Registrar that certain Judges are directly
involved and should not be selected. No more than one-third
of registered Judges may be designated as unsuitable. Neither
the Registrar nor the Vote Counter may serve as voters in
censure cases.
Why should I use this List instead of a newsgroup?
Discussions of abusive practices also occur in the
newsgroups, for example, news.admin.policy. That newsgroup
has over 50,000 readers and over 50% of articles are
crossposted. Each post, therefore, uses a minimum of 20 hours
of readers' time, even if each reader spends only a second
reading the subject line of an article. Examination of the
post itself can lead to ten times that amount of time being
used, or even more. It is suggested, therefore, that posts
to newsgroups be limited to novel incidents, with the
potential for generating a new policy consensus. Routine
abuse can be handled in a much more economical manner, if it
is referred to this List.
Another advantage of using the List for cancel notifications
is the almost immediate delivery of email. Newsgroup
propagation is significantly slower, meaning that duplicate
cancels may be issued. This can create problems, relating to
the propagation of cancel messages, and certainly means
unnecessary work for administrators.
Consensus rarely occurs in newsgroups, if there is even the
slightest disagreement on an issue. In order to create an
alternative to arbitrary cancellation, cancellation wars
between posters and administrators, etc., it is important to
reach a consensus through a process that is open and fair. A
list makes it more likely that every person sees the same
material, which cannot be assured with people browsing
newsgroups. Also, lists are less "public", so there is less
incentive for people to defend positions, merely because they
have taken them. This is a well know problem in international
negotiations. These factors, when combined with the
procedures suggested here, make reaching a consensus on the
List much more likely than in a newsgroup.
Another advantage of List operation is the privacy of the
List archives. This makes it less likely that disputants
seize upon details of statements made by Judges as indicating
support for their position. The transfer of completed
decisions to the publicly assessable file area, on the other
hand, make them more likely to be used as guidance in dispute
resolution. These completed decisions can also be used as a
database of known offenders, in order to facilitate dealing
with repeated abuse. This effect is even stronger in the case
of accepted opinions, which are posted to USENET.
Finally, there are some people who cannot understand that it
is not OK to do anything that is not explicitly against some
"law." These people need some "legal" decisions to abide by,
because they will not stop abusive activities otherwise. They
may also view cancellation of their articles as abridging
their "free speech" or "restraining their trade" and take
their complaint to a court. The Judges-L can be the court of
first instance, thereby reducing the risk of interference by
governmental authorities with activities on the Net.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judges-L Registration Form.
Replace underlines "____" completely (in relevant items) with
your information and return to:
[log in to unmask]
Last name __________________________
Other names, initials, titles, etc. ________________________
Address __________________________
City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________
Telephone number (include country code) ____________________
Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____
Work or other address __________________________
City, State, Country, ZIP, etc. __________________________
Telephone number (include country code) ____________________
Best times to Phone From _____ to _____ and _____ to _____
Finger entry _________________________
X.500 directory listing _________________________
Network information center entries _________________________
_________________________
Other directory entries _________________________
_________________________
_________________________
_________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================
David S. Stodolsky, PhD Internet: [log in to unmask]
Tornskadestien 2, st. th. (C) Tel.: + 45 38 33 03 30
DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark Fax: + 45 38 33 88 80
|
