Text 27831, 71 rader
Skriven 2012-04-12 05:28:15 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 27823 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Nodelist out of date
============================
12 Apr 12 08:03, Robert Bashe wrote to Roy Witt:

 MV>>> http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/policys/regp100.024

 RW>> So the gist of that document is per its own section 7.1.1; Filing
 RW>> Formal Complaints to reprimand or withdraw a Node Number for a
 RW>> period of time, "According to Echopol"...

 RB> The "gist" of that document was to detail and clarify most of the
 RB> points mentioned in Policy 4, adding certain rights for nodes and
 RB> points that are not explicitly mentioned in Policy.

The 'gist' of it 20+ years later is that EP1 was never ratified by 'all
Fidonet Coordinators" as an "Echomail Policy" per P4...

EP1 - Enforce  "Enforcement of this policy document shall be under the
      ment      provisions of General FidoNet policy."

Except that Policy 4.07 does not recognize EP1 as an Echomail Policy "as
being part of General Fidonet Policy".

Until such time as it does and is 'ratified' by a majority of "Fidonet
Coordinators", has no jurisdiction, anywhere.

P4 - Ratified: "In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends
                (and does not contradict) general Policy, maintained  by
                and ratified by a process similar to that of this
                document, is recognized by the FidoNet Coordinators as a
                valid structure for dispute resolution on matters
                pertaining to echomail.

P4 - Future  :  At some future date the echomail policy document may be
                merged with this one.

 RB> It only concerned itself with "echomail offences" in passing, and the
 RB> salient part came right at the beginning:

That's not what I'm reading in EP1.

 RB> "Until another document is approved and comes into force, Echopol 1
 RB> in the currently valid version of February 1, 1989 is binding in
 RB> R24."

EP1 depends on an *EC structure for enforcement, of whom aren't even
mentioned in P4.

 RB> I might add that Echopol 1 was, at least at that time, also binding
 RB> in the entire Z2, so this was simply stating a fact, not setting any
 RB> new precedent.

The entirety of Z2 *Cs who adopted EP1 without a ratification process by
all concerned should have been Excommed for EAB...

 RB> I might further mention that I was one of the two persons (Werner
 RB> Dworak being the other) who translated the original German text into
 RB> English, and I was also involved in formulating the policy, so I have
 RB> more than a passing knowledge of what it does and what it doesn't
 RB> contain or imply.

Shame on you.


                R\%/itt


  ... Only those who will risk going too far can possibly
  ... find out how far one can go ~ TS Eliot


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)