Re: [alac] Re: [alac-admin] New Website action items

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think it's important that we permit some anonymous posting.  We can 
rate-limit it to a few anonymous posts per day, encourage people to 
register with verifiable email addresses (including mailinator), but 
I wouldn't support excluding that avenue of participation 
altogether.  If the forum fills up with trolls, that itself says 
something about ICANN and ALAC.

--Wendy

At 12:35 PM 9/9/2005 -0700, Bret Fausett wrote:
> Another thing to consider is pseudonyms. For example, I don't allow
> "anonymous" comments on my weblog but registered users don't have to
> provide their real names. If a registered user is abusing the comments
> (e.g., "Texas Hold 'Em" gambling spam or Jim Fleming), I can delete the
> comment and block the user from future posts (by either registered name
> or IP address). You only need to look at the ICANNWatch web site to see
> the damage done by a couple of people to the quality of the board.
> Slashdot-style message boards allow you to filter content, but I think
> most people use the default and never learn how to control what they
> read. Something about ICANN seems to bring out the trolls. I don't think
> we should require people to post their real names, but I would like to
> encourage the use of real names and somehow create a forum that
> encourages quality over daily posts about ipv8.
>
> > 8 -- My recollection of the discussions about the website is that 
> > the ALAC wanted people to sign-up to use the fora to encourage 
> > discussion between identified At-Large community members.  Whether 
> > or not anonymous postings are allowed is, of course, completely up to the ALAC.

--
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html