Volume 8, Number 21 27 May 1991 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | FidoNet (r) | | \ \\ | | International BBS Network | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Copyright 1991, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software. FidoNews is published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. It is a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are used with permission. Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software. Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 It's been Real ........................................... 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 4 The GATEWAY Complaint - the NC's side .................... 4 WorldPol: Second Act ..................................... 7 Why do we need a WorldPol? ............................... 20 Zone 1 Coordinators on Notice ............................ 22 Response to Henry Clark's Comments on "Joggraphy" ........ 23 A Cautionary Tale ........................................ 27 Telephone-Call Cost-Reporting Program .................... 31 GateWorks Release! ....................................... 34 And more! FidoNews 8-21 Page 1 27 May 1991 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= This is my last Editorial. I have resigned as FidoNews Editor. We are currently working our way through a "short list" of replacement candidates, and the new Editor will be on the job next week. Be kind to the poor soul. I've just been looking though the indexes for the past two years. It's really amazing what we have been through. It's even more amazing that we are still here to talk about it. For example, when I took over Dale's job as Editor, the current version of FidoNet Policy was Version 3. David Dodell was the current International Coordinator. IFNA was still trying to figure out what, if anything, could be made of its existence. I was running my system on a DEC Rainbow. It worked great, too. A few other hardy souls were doing similar things on Sanyo and Tandy PC's (the ones from before Tandy became the PC-Clone hawker that they are today). Hardly anyone is doing THAT any more! POLICY4 was declared to be in force in FidoNews Volume 6, Number 24, on June 12, 1989. This created a stir because in the absence of a formal procedure in POLICY3 for replacement, David used the method described in the POLICY4 draft to determine whether he should declare it to be in force. Boy, what a stir! There was that article in Volume 6, Number 26, entitled "Policy 4: FidoNet now a Nazi Dictatorship?". To the best of my knowledge nobody has been gassed or blitzed (except metaphorically) in the almost two years since. David quit at the end of July. I quit two weeks later, then changed my mind (with some coercion from friends). It was an exciting time to be the Editor. Because the Great IFNA Mandate Plebiscite was taking place. This was IFNA's final answer to the people who had claimed that the simple majority who chose IFNA were not representative. The voting rules were simple: if you were in the nodelist running a public access system, you were eligible. And a majority of all eligible nodes was required to endorse IFNA. If IFNA won the election, the critics would be silenced forever. And in a high stakes gamble, IFNA agreed to disband if not ratified. Did IFNA ever have a chance? Was it the right idea? Who really can say anymore? In any event, apathy won the election and IFNA was out, as reported in FidoNews Volume 7, Number 1. FidoNews 8-21 Page 2 27 May 1991 As I look back to 1989, what's really fascinating is that Pablo Kleinman was already at work on Worldpol in the immediate aftermath of the Policy4 adoption. And he's still at it. He is showing signs of getting it right, too. It's just going to take some more time. Remember Hurricane Hugo? Remember what it did to Mike Ratledge and many others in his area? FidoNet reached out and touched him in a very special way, and FidoNews was there, starting with an article in Volume 6, Number 39 entitled "Let's give Mike Ratledge a hand". One of our finest hours. I am proud to have been here to see it. FidoNews has had its critics too. There was an article in Volume 6, Number 40 entitled "FidoNews: What IS Its Purpose ?". I have my own ideas about that. Fortunately for my peace of mind, it will soon be someone else's problem to define that role. When the Internetwork Gating Policy was published, there was a lot of comment. Mostly negative. I think (speaking as one of the people who had some input in the process) that if the criticism was directed at alternative solutions to the problems addressed in the Policy rather than direct attacks on the entire idea of HAVING such a document, we might have accomplished something. As things stand, the original document is still in force but not strongly enforced. In other words "If you want to connect to FidoNet, you could refer to this document and get it right -- or just do it any old way". Sigh. What happened to the idea of you don't go wee-wee in my garden and I won't go poo-poo in yours? We at FidoNews had a great moment in everyone's spotlight too. The way things were progressing, it was getting really hard to attract your attention anymore. But we found a way. On July 30, 1990 lots of you woke up to find FidoNews sitting on your system in a file compressed with LHARC. Yup, you sure DID notice. I think it was probably the most popular topic in FidoNews that year. Even with the late start. It really pissed off Saddam Hussein too. In less than a week he had taken over Kuwait in an attempt to capture the responsible parties. After being told that the dirty deed had been done by an American, he is reported to have said "An American? OK. I'll wait here for him." I never made it over there. A lot of very brave folks did. And they did a great job. FidoNet was involved too, in its own unique way. An article in FidoNews Volume 7, Number 45 announced "The Saudi Connection". Numerous articles about the war were published. A healthy exchange of opinions ensued. People were engaged. It was great. FidoNews 8-21 Page 3 27 May 1991 We had ZC, RC and EC elections in Zone 1 and elsewhere, as the idea of democracy flowered in the Net. Then of course we had the great turnout in the Worldpol ratification vote. Electing NC's is an idea whose time has come. It should be easier to throw out the old slugs than it presently is. I sure wish I knew where FidoNet is going these days. The only consolation I have is that nobody knows. If anybody tells you that he or she DOES know, you can safely call that person a liar. Boy, there are some great memories here. And some not so great memories. It's been a lot of fun. But I won't miss it. I'll be too busy with other things. Well, maybe I will miss it. But I promise not to make a scene. Best regards, Vince ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-21 Page 4 27 May 1991 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Glen Johnson 1:269/101@fidonet.org The GATEWAY Complaint - the NC's side I'm just writing this little blurb to clear up any misunderstanding about the "Gateway Complaint" filed by Bob Moravsik, and finally ruled on by the International Coordinator. First, a very brief summary of what it was all about. This text is by Matt Whelan, in Fidonews 819: "In essence, Bob complained that a directive from his then-NC, Glen Johnson, contradicted the FidoNet Gateway Document adopted by me last year." "The NC directive, to his hub coordinators, insisted they pass on all mail for their nodes, regardless of origin. It also insisted they should accept calls from any system, whether or not it was a FidoNet node." "Bob complained this forced the Hub Coords to act as Gateway systems under FidoNet policy. Thus they would be required to provide outbound gating facilities as well, despite the technical complications this involved." "The decision at all levels was made more difficult by the complaint's somewhat unclear intent: was it a protest at the NC's imposition of a policy at all, or at the content of the policy?" Got it? Ok. As the person that drafted the HC policy that Bob filed his complaint about, maybe I should explain what that policy was all about, and why I drafted it. My policy, which was a directive issued to all the hub coordinators in our net, was that they were to accept calls, and accept mail from wherever it came from, and forward it to the addressee *IF* the addressee was a listed system in their hub. This was to be done regardless of the origin of the message. I basically directed all the hub coordinators to not give a hoot if the message came from a Fidonet system or not, but to pay attention to whom it was ADDRESSED. I did not require hub coordinators to gate replies back. That's what the policy was all about. FidoNews 8-21 Page 5 27 May 1991 Bob immediately complained that this modus operandi contradicted the GATEPOL document that was dumped on the network by Matt Whelan. His complaint first went to RC13, who rejected it, then to Z1C, who also rejected it. It finally went to Matt, and Fidonews 819 contains his decision. Now WHY did I invent this HC policy to begin with? Well, I actually didn't INVENT it. My hub coordinator's policy was merely a written document that reflected STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in Region 13. I had been told by RC13 that this was how systems were to operate in Region 13. Whether or not I agree with that is irrelevant. I felt that if I were required to operate my system as the net host in a particular fashion, then all of the HCs under me are merely extensions of me, and that they too, should be required to operate the same way. So I "put it in writing" and shipped it off to the hub coordinators. My HC policy in no way deviated from what had always been the normal day to day method of operation within region 13, and it reflected my interpretation of how the RC wanted things done. Furthermore, I want it to be known that the complaint filed about my HC policy was by no means an adversarial one. Bob and I BOTH were anxious to see it resolved, as we BOTH wanted to see the *C structure, from the top down, speak the same language. Had my policy been overturned by the IC, that would have been fine with me. I was much more interested in seeing that all the coordinators in the "chain of command" knew, without any doubt, what the score was. In any case, since this issue came up, you couldn't possibly imagine the amount of juvenile mud slinging that has gone on about it. ALL of the parties involved have been acting like a bunch of whining crybabies, but that's a story for another day. Its also not my problem :) On April 1, 1991 I retired as NC 269, and I appointed (with the RC's approval) Mike Brandt, 1:269/201 to serve as interim NC until the net coule democratically elect a replacement. I was elected NC twice, served two consecutive terms, and I felt that passing the torch would give someone else the unique opportunity to experience first hand, all of the nitpicking HORSESH*T that some NCs have to deal with. Mike wasn't in "office" for a week before he found out about that BIG TIME. Personally, I find the GatePol document to be repulsive. But that's just my opinion. And you know what they say about opinions. But the most mind boggling thing about this whole mess (which has been dragging on for months, and just escalated to the boiling point a few weeks ago) is just how crazy some people are when it comes to this stuff. Acting like Fidonet is something incredibly IMPORTANT. When are people going to use Fidonet for the purpose it was INTENDED... to ENHANCE your damn BBS, instead of trying to make an EMPIRE out FidoNews 8-21 Page 6 27 May 1991 of the thing and play lawyer, judge and jury like a bunch of three year olds watching LA LAW? So there you have it. My policy, the complaint, and the decision. As far as I'M concerned, the case is closed. But I'm sure SOME people will find ways to beat it to a pulp and whine about it for months to come. Maybe its not so bad. It'll keep 'em off the streets. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-21 Page 7 27 May 1991 A BETTER POLICY FOR FIDONET (The Odyssey Continues) The recent vote on WorldPol version 1h is over. Results, as we have seen, were 39.5% in favour of adoption, 48.7% against adoption, and WorldPol version 1h was not adopted as a policy for FidoNet. But considering that only the coordinators can vote, I must admit that the figures were not disillusioning at all for those of us that promote WorldPol. Since the last known version of WorldPol was released last December, suggestions continued arriving, different points of view were exposed on FidoNews, and I got a few new ideas that I added to the document. The current FidoNet policy document, Policy4, is unquestionably impossible to enforce in a great portion of the world as well as opposed by a considerable number of the network's members. The debate created by the WorldPol election was effective in proving the fact that Policy4 MUST be changed. Support for WorldPol in Zone 4 was unanimous, in Zone 2 was 46 to 12. There was also a great number of abstentions, primarily in North America where most of the coordinators did not participate in the referendum. A wise friend once told me: "if you are sure you are following the right path, keep on going". This is precisely what, God willing, I aim to do. I aspire to see improved outcome on this second occasion. This is a second opportunity not only for WorldPol, but for you that voted against it: participate so the next time you find it acceptable! When the second WorldPol referendum is held, no excuses will be accepted from those that deliberately decide not to participate. If someone is allowed to make a change and voluntarily rejects the opportunity, he shall have no right to complain later. A multi-zone echomail conference will be freely available to all those interested in participating in WorldPol 2. In the meantime, net-mail participation will be also welcome, as it has been since 1989. Be sure to write as soon as possible to node 4:4/50 if you are interested in carrying the WorldPol echomail conference, which will be headquartered in Zone-1. Changes made to WorldPol with version 2: (a) different requirements for admittance to FidoNet and provisions for cases of discrimination; (b) adjustment in the roles of the ZCC and the IC; (c) definition of point systems and their rights; (d) FidoNews requirement modified; (e) election procedures described and elimination of "democratic by western standards". In addition to this, wording has been modified throughout the document, some grammar was corrected or changed. FidoNews 8-21 Page 8 27 May 1991 Here is the complete WorldPol 2: W o r l d P o l The FidoNet Worldwide Policy Document Version 2, 23 May 1991 This Worldwide Policy document has been released for vote by the members of FidoNet and is not yet in force. 1 FidoNet This document establishes an international (inter-zonal) policy for sysops who are members of the FidoNet organization of bulletin board systems worldwide. FidoNet is defined by a list of nodes (NodeList) issued on a weekly basis by each of the Zone Coordinators, on behalf of the International Coordinator. A node is understood to be a "member system" of FidoNet. The collection of nodes is classified into Zones, Regions and Networks. Each FidoNet Zone is entitled to issue its own policy document, according to its own needs and customs. This International Policy, determines general rules which must be specified -and may not be contradicted- by the Zone Policies. Regions and Networks may also issue their own policies according to the provisions stated on the corresponding Zone Policy. 1.1 Overview FidoNet is an amateur electronic mail system. As such, all of its participants and operators are unpaid volunteers. From its early beginning in 1984, as a few friends swapping messages back and forth mainly in North America, it consists now of an International community of more than ten thousand systems all over the world. FidoNet is not a common carrier or a value-added service network and is a public network only as much as the independent, constituent nodes may individually provide public access to the network on their system. FidoNet exists to provide electronic mail services to its member sysops. To efficiently provide such services, various structure and control mechanisms are essential. The structure is organized into multiple nets, with decentralized administration. FidoNews 8-21 Page 9 27 May 1991 This document delineates all of the procedures at the international level of FidoNet, as well as some general rules for the lower levels (intra-zonal), developed to manage the network. Authorities in the international level not defined by this document, shall be defined by the Zone Coordinators Council and the International Coordinator. 2 Language Each zone has the right to determine its own official language. At the international (inter-zonal) level, for practical purposes, FidoNet adopts English as its official language. All the FidoNet documents issued at the international level must exist in English. Translation into other languages is encouraged. 3 Admittance to FidoNet FidoNet membership is open to everyone fulfilling the technical standards described on a document released by the network's Technical Standards Committee (FTS-0001 at this writing). Lower-level policies may issue additional restrictions only if specifically authorized by the Zone Coordinator Council. 3.1 Anti-discrimination Policy Discrimination is strictly forbidden within FidoNet. This means that any type of restriction imposed to a member of the network that has no technical justification is illegal and unacceptable. No technical requisites will be demanded to any member of the network than those specifically authorized by this or lower-level policy documents. 4 Organization The organizational structure of FidoNet, has been developed to distribute the administration and control of FidoNet, to the lowest possible level, while still allowing for coordinated action over the entire system. Effective administration is made viable by operating in a top-down manner. This means, that a person at any given level is responsible to the level above, and responsible for administrating the level below. FidoNews 8-21 Page 10 27 May 1991 If a person at any level above sysop is unable to properly perform their duties, the person at the next level may replace them. For example, if a Region Coordinator fails to perform, the Zone Coordinator may cause the Coordinator to be replaced. Coordinators may also be removed by a majority vote of the level below. For example, if network Coordinators in a region lose faith in the ability of a Region Coordinator to effectively perform, they may vote to have a new Coordinator elected. 4.1 Zone Coordinator Council The Zone Coordinator Council (ZCC) consists of the Zone Coordinators and the International Coordinator. Each Zone Coordinator has one vote at the ZCC. The International Coordinator may only vote in the event of a ZCC vote tie, but does not regularly have voting power. The Zone Coordinator Council is the legislative body of FidoNet, it represents each of the zones in FidoNet. It is the highest authority of the network's Top-Down organization. 4.2 International Coordinator The International Coordinator (IC) is the Executive Officer of FidoNet and coordinates the joint production of the master nodelist by the Zone Coordinators. The International Coordinator is responsible for creating new zones in FidoNet, but can only do so with the approval of a simple majority of the members of the Zone Coordinator Council. The International Coordinator is selected by unanimous vote of the Zone Coordinators, and removed by a majority vote of the Zone Coordinators. In the case of absence of the International Coordinator, the Zone Coordinator Council replaces him by voting on all IC resolutions to be approved by a simple majority. 4.3 Zones and Zone Coordinators A zone is a defined geographic area containing one or many regions, covering one or more countries. The Zone Coordinator is the Executive Officer of the Zone, and the zone's representative to the other zones. The Zone Coordinator compiles the nodelists from all of the regions in the zone, creates a master nodelist and a difference file, which is then distributed over FidoNet within the zone. A Zone Coordinator does not perform message-forwarding services for any nodes in the zone, whereas the Zone Coordinator is responsible for the formation and/or administration of one or more zone-gates to provide inter-zone mail facilities. FidoNews 8-21 Page 11 27 May 1991 The method used for selection of Zone coordinators is left to the discretion of the relevant Zone Policy. In the absence of a Zone Policy selection method, Zone Coordinators are elected and removed by a simple majority vote of the Region Coordinators in the Zone. 4.4 Regions and Region Coordinators A Region is a defined geographic area containing nodes which may or may not be combined into networks. A typical Region will contain many nodes in networks, and a few independent nodes which are not part of the network. The Region Coordinator maintains the list of independent nodes in the region, and accepts nodelists from the Network Coordinators in the Region. These are compiled to create a regional nodelist, which is sent to the Zone Coordinator. A Region Coordinator is encouraged to perform message-forwarding services for nodes within the region, but is not forced to, unless the appropriate Zone or Region policy imposes such a requirement. The method used for selection of Regional coordinators is left to the discretion of the relevant Zone or Region Policy. In the absence of such a policy selection method, Region Coordinators are elected and removed by a simple majority vote of the Ncs in the Region. 4.5 Networks and Network Coordinators A network is a group of nodes, normally but not exclusively in a local geographic area. Networks coordinate their mail activity to decrease cost. The Network Coordinator is responsible for maintaining the list of nodes for the network, and for forwarding netmail sent to members of the network from other FidoNet nodes. The Network Coordinator may make arrangements to handle outgoing netmail, but is not required to do so, unless the appropriate Zone, Region or Net policy imposes such a requirement. The Network Coordinator is responsible for assigning each and every petitioner within his own geographic area, a valid node number within 10 days. A node application can solely be rejected on technical grounds and if that is the case, the petitioner and the rest of the local network must be informed by the NC of the requirements that will allow the node number to be assigned. The method used for selection of Network coordinators is left to the discretion of the relevant Zone/Region/Net Policy. In the absence of such a policy selection method, Network Coordinators are elected and removed by a simple majority vote of the Nodes in the Network. FidoNews 8-21 Page 12 27 May 1991 4.5.1 Network Routing Hubs Network Routing Hubs exist only in some networks. They may be appointed by the Network Coordinator, in order to assist the management (especially routing tasks) of the network. 4.6 Individual systems (Nodes) The smallest subdivision of FidoNet is the individual system, corresponding to a single entry in the nodelist. The system operator (SysOp) formulates a policy for running the board and dealing with the users. The sysop must mesh with the rest of the FidoNet system to receive and send mail, and the local policy must be consistent with other levels of FidoNet. 4.6.1 Points A point is a system that is not in the nodelist, but communicates with FidoNet through a node defined to as bossnode. A point operator is generally regarded in the same manner as a node operator, but does not have right to vote and shares responsibility of his actions with his bossnode. The bossnode operator is responsible for all mail originating at the point. All mail sent to a point is addressed to the bossnode's address. A point operator is granted full rights under this policy document as an associate (co-sysop) of the bossnode operator listed on the nodelist. 4.6.2 Users of an individual system The sysop is responsible for the actions of any user when they affect the rest of FidoNet (i.e. if the user is annoying, the sysop is annoying). The users have no rights under this policy document. 4.7 The FidoNet Technical Standards Committee The FidoNet Technical Standards Committee, abbreviated as the FTSC, exists for the purpose of establishing minimum requirements in software and hardware to be able to interface with FidoNet. These minimum requirements must be obeyed at every level. Nodes not meeting these requirements are ineligible for a node number (see section 5.9). These requirements are subject to change at any time by the FTSC. FidoNews 8-21 Page 13 27 May 1991 5 General Procedures for All Coordinators 5.1 Making Available Difference Files and Nodelist Each Coordinator is responsible for obtaining and making available for file request, on a weekly basis, nodelist difference files and complete nodelists. 5.2 Making Available FidoNews Documents FidoNews is the Official Newsletter of FidoNet. Each Coordinator is responsible for obtaining and making available for file request on a weekly basis, FidoNews Documents. This requirement may be waived in the event that a majority of the Sysops served by the Coordinator have no desire to read or receive FidoNews. If a Zone Coordinator is not able to get FidoNews into his Zone, he should immediately request help to the FidoNews Editor. If the Editor can arrange a way to have it delivered to the Zone Coordinator, FidoNews must be necessarily available to the rest of the Zone. Otherwise, the Zone Coordinator may unilaterally waive this requirement. 5.3 Processing Nodelist Changes and Passing Them Upstream Each Coordinator is responsible for obtaining nodelist information from the level below, processing it, and passing the results to the level above. The timing of this process is determined by the requirements imposed by the level above. 5.4 Ensure the Latest Policy is Available A Coordinator is responsible to make the current version of the International Policy available to the level below, and to encourage familiarity with it. 5.5 Minimize the Number of Hats Worn Coordinators are persuaded to limit the number of FidoNet-related Coordinator functions they perform. A Coordinator who holds two different positions, compromises the appeal process. For example, is the Network Coordinator is also the Region Coordinator, sysops in that network are denied one level of appeal. FidoNews 8-21 Page 14 27 May 1991 Multiple hats are also discouraged due to the difficulty of replacing services when a coordinator leaves the net. 5.6 Be a Member of the Area Administered A Coordinator must be a member of the area administered. This is, a Network Coordinator must be a member of the network he is to coordinate. A Region Coordinator must be either a member of a network in the region, or an independent in a region. 5.7 Encourage New Sysops to Enter FidoNet A Coordinator is encouraged to operate a public bulletin board system which is freely available for the purpose of distributing Policy and Nodelists to potential new sysops. Dissemination of this information to persons who are potential FidoNet sysops is important to the growth of FidoNet, and Coordinators should encourage development of new systems. 5.8 Tradition, Precedent and Technical Management A Coordinator is not bound by the practices of predecessor. However, it must be clear that Coordinators are bound by all requirements of this document, both as FidoNet sysops and as Coordinators. The holding of a Coordinator title does not grant license to annoy others or to flaunt policy. The primary responsibility of any Coordinator is technical management of network operations. Decisions MUST be made only on technical grounds. A Coordinator has the responsibility to act as objectively as possible; objectivity must be considered an essential factor when making a decision. 5.9 Exclusivity of Zone Mail Hour Zone Mail Hour is the heart of FidoNet, as this is when network mail is passed between systems. Any system which wishes to be a part of FidoNet must be able to receive mail during this time using the protocol defined in the current FidoNet Technical Standards Committee publication (FTS-0001 at this writing). It is permissible to have greater capability (for example, to support additional protocols or extended mail hours), but the minimum requirement is FTS-0001 capability during this one hour of the day. This time is exclusively reserved for netmail. Many phone systems charge on a per-call basis, regardless of whether a connect, no connect, or busy signal is encountered. For this reason, any activity other than normal network mail processing that ties up a system during ZMH is considered annoying behavior. User (BBS) access to a system is prohibited during ZMH. FidoNews 8-21 Page 15 27 May 1991 Zone Mail Hour will be defined by each Zone Policy. In the absence of a Zone Policy, it will be defined by the Zone Coordinator. 6 Election and Referendum Procedures Any election or referendum at any level of FidoNet, must comply with the standards described in this chapter. 6.1 Democratic Qualities of the Election All sysops in FidoNet have a vote and must be allowed to participate in an election or referendum. All sysops in FidoNet are entitled to be candidates to any elective position, provided that the requirements for each position described on this and lower-level policy documents are satisfied. 6.2 Particular election mechanisms Each zone will issue its own election procedures, which may involve direct participation or indirect participation (electoral college approach). In any case, all the sysops in the zone must be allowed to vote. In the case of an indirect elections, the electors must be chosen by direct vote of the sysops. 6.2.1 Coordinators acting as Electors Coordinators will automatically be qualified as electors representing their network or region in an indirect election only if they have been chosen by direct vote of the sysops in the administered area. 6.4 Worldwide elections and referendums In worldwide elections and referendums with the participation of all zones, the Zone Coordinator Council will determine the election procedures and whether vote will be direct or indirect. This will be done in each particular case by form of a ZCC resolution. 7 Policy Referenda FidoNews 8-21 Page 16 27 May 1991 7.1 International Policy A referendum on International Policy modification is invoked by the International Coordinator at the direction of a majority of the Zone Coordinators, or a majority of the Region Coordinators of all zones, a majority of the Network Coordinators of all zones, or by one third of all the sysops in all zones. All the members of FidoNet are entitled to vote on an International Policy referendum, which is to be held according to the procedures described by the Zone Coordinator Council before the election is called. 7.2 Zone Policy A referendum on Zone Policy modification is invoked by the Zone Coordinator, by a majority vote of the Region Coordinators in the zone, by a majority vote of the Network Coordinators in the zone, or by one third of all the sysops in the zone. All the members of the zone are entitled to vote on a Zone Policy referendum, which is to be held according to the procedures described on the Zone Policy. If such document does not exist, the procedures will be determined by the Zone Coordinator with the approval of the Zone Coordinator Council. The formulation of Region and Network Policy documents is encouraged, and must be regulated by the Zone Policy documents in each zone. 7.3 Transition to a 'Worldwide Policy environment' After the approval of this Worldwide Policy, the previously existing policy will still be in effect for the Zone level until the approval of a new Zone policy, according to the methods provided in this document. All the procedures introduced by this Worldwide Policy document adjourn the procedures existing in the previous policy document. 8 Resolution of Disputes The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules: 1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others. 2) Thou shalt not become excessively annoyed. FidoNews 8-21 Page 17 27 May 1991 The parties involved in a dispute are encouraged to solve their problems directly, without the intervention of a Coordinator. 8.1 Mediation Requests Any of the parties involved may request the intervention of the respective Coordinator: Network Coordinator if a dispute between members of the same network, Region Coordinator if a dispute between members of different networks on the same region; Zone Coordinator if a dispute between members of different regions on the same zone; International Coordinator if a dispute between members of different zones. The Coordinator requested as "mediator", will ask each party to provide all the information before two weeks from the request and will make a decision within forty-five days after he received all the information from the involved parties. A Coordinator, unable to resolve a dispute, may name a third party to act as "mediator", provided the parties involved in the dispute agree. 8.2 Appealing to a Mediator's Decision A mediator's decision may be appealed to the immediately superior level if considered unfair: Region Coordinators handle appeals from decisions made by Network Coordinators; Zone Coordinators handle appeals from decision made by Region Coordinators; The International Coordinator handles appeals from decisions made by the Zone Coordinators; and the Zone Coordinator Council will handle appeals from decisions made by the International Coordinator, being the Zone Coordinator Council's resolutions, unappealable. For appealing to a decision made by a third person named by a Coordinator to act as mediator, it will be as if the Coordinator made the resolution and the previously enumerated sequence of appealing will be appropriate. For appealing to a decision made by a mediator, the same terms and procedures as for any Mediation Request apply. 8.3 Statute of Limitations A mediation request may not be filed more than 60 days after the date of discovery of the source of the infraction, either by admission or technical discovery of the source of an infraction, either by admission or technical evidence. Mediation requests may not be filed more than 120 days after the incident, unless they involve suspected unlawful behavior, in which the legal statute of limitations of the country involved shall apply. FidoNews 8-21 Page 18 27 May 1991 8.4 Echomail and File Distribution Networks Each FidoNet Zone is encouraged to establish in it's Zone Policy, the manner of handling Echomail and File Distribution, and the resolution of disputes arising from both distributions. No sysop may be required to carry an echomail conference or a File Distribution a as a condition of joining or remaining in FidoNet. 9 "CCC": Comments, Credits and Copyright! This section will be automatically removed upon approval of this document. 9.1 Comments on Implementation This document is not final. No FidoNet policy is or will ever be. WorldPol is an open enterprise where every member in FidoNet is encouraged to participate. It is a unique experience, so far successful. If you disagree with any point of this document, you have a real opportunity of have your voice be heard and contribute to the future of FidoNet. All FidoNet sysops are encouraged to make suggestions for changes, as well as comments, which can be addressed to FidoNet node 4:4/50 (WorldPol Project). This World Policy will be adopted according to the mechanisms provided on the present policy document. 9.2 Credits WorldPol has received either directly or indirectly, input from the following individuals (in alphabetical order): Raul Artaza, Bill Bolton, Steve Bonine, Randy Bush, Billy Coen, Jack Decker, Daniel Docekal, Ron Dwight, Hector Gomez, Tomas Gradin, Rob Hoare, Jesse David Hollington, Alejandro Hopkins, Tom Jennings, Glen Johnson, Daniel Kalchev, Raymond Lowe, Rick Moore, George Peace, Vince Perriello, Bob Satti, Jan Stozek, Erik Van Riper, Matt Whelan, and Gustavo Zacarias. Thank you all. Special thanks are hereby given to Thomas Jefferson whose ideas were still in the 1990s an important source of inspiration for this document. FidoNews 8-21 Page 19 27 May 1991 9.3 Temporary Copyright This document is Copyright (C) 1991 by Pablo Kleinman. Todos los Derechos Reservados / All Rights Reserved. This document is protected under international copyright laws. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-21 Page 20 27 May 1991 Don Benson Tribute Test Point 1:157/603 Why do we need a WorldPol? I have read with interest the debate in Fidonews since the publication of WorldPol. The arguments fly back and forth, and both sides seem set in their decisions, yet one issue that I think is important has yet to come up. Do we need an international "Policy" like WorldPol or Policy4? Fidonet has grown to encompass most of the world. In doing so, it has absorbed people and technologies from many cultural and technological backgrounds. To ask for one policy document which will satisfy all is an insurmountable task. Yet this is what is being attempted in WorldPol. There are only two directions to move with such a document, either toward anarchy or dictatorship. Some people complain that Policy 4 was too much like a dictatorship. The opposite side claims the proposed WorldPol is too vague, and will promote anarchy. A prime example of this is the debate over "western democratic standards." If left in its vague form, it would prmote anarchy as people interpreted it as they liked. However, changing the language to specific operational procedures would be forcing some people to adopt methods which aren't ideal for them. The crux of the situation seems to be that WorldPol tries to do too much. Policy 4 had the same problem as Zones 2 through 6 developed and flourished. What needs to be done is to simply throw out anything that is not necessary on an international level. For example, the issue of geographical nets comes to mind. What difference does it make to Joe Sysop in Anytown, USA if Jurgen Sysop in Jeneburg, Germany is not in a geographical net? Especially when sending netmail? This is something that should be decided on the zone or even regional level, not internationally. Concerning elections, perhaps WorldPol should only decree how the IC is elected. It should have no say or take any position on how any other *C's are elected. This still leaves room for debate, since the specific method of an IC election will never please everyone. However, it also doesn't place any weight on elections at lower levels. The trickiest area I see in defining a WordPol is handling international disputes. In fact, this should be the main body of WorldPol, and have the most meaning. Everything else should only be minimal procedural definitions for the sake of structure, which is necessary to keep the organization together. FidoNews 8-21 Page 21 27 May 1991 One final point for anybody who is or wants to have an input on WorldPol. I never knew one was being developed (mostly because I am a fairly new Fidonet node) until I saw it in the Snooze. For those who are sending in suggestions, how about this one: Try to make any Policy reflect how things are actually working. In sum, I think that WorldPol could probably be reduced to a third of the current size, and we would end up with a smaller, more effective document. Take a few moments and look at WorldPol again. Ask yourself if each section is absolutely necessary to be controlled at the international level? If not, why include it? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-21 Page 22 27 May 1991 Zone 1 Coordinators on Notice George Peace 1:1/0 I expect each Network and Region Coordinator in Zone 1 to review section 8 of FidoNet Policy. I'll