Rule(s)

• 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, they 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 counterproductive, 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.

Proposed Changes

Rationale 

Next Steps