Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #460
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 460

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:23:42 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

> From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:55 PM
> 
> On 14 May 2001, at 18:21, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School 
> of Law wrote:
> 
> > I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this 
> much time to
> > maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, 

> Unless the Secretariat is reading every message (totally 

> if at all on a daily basis.  Spending twenty hours to set up 
> six lists 
> boggles the mind, IMO.  Unless there is a tremendous amount of 

Not if one had to set them up from scratch, including majordomo, and
learning how to do it in the process. Then, it sort of makes sense. However,
if that were the case, there are quite a few that would have assisted, that
DO know what they're doing.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:52:08 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Patrick Greenwell wrote:

> Did you get a sense of what that 20 hours was spent on exactly? The reason
> I ask is that I run several mailing lists and it takes about 5 minutes to
> set one up, so there must be a lot more to what the Secretariat is doing
> in setting up a list.
>
> Perhaps Elisabeth could let us know?

I think she could... but most likely won't.  I'm sure there's a good explanantion
why a five, ten, or even fifteen minute task can take 20 hours, plus two hours a
day "maintenance"... but I can't think of one.  I use a majordomo mailing list on
one of our sites and it took me all of three minutes to set it up.  As for
maintenance, well, I think we all know the score...

Perhaps the inflated time figures Elizabeth quoted have something to do with the
fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does at sea level?

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:02:21 -0500
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

Roeland:

El lun, 14 may 2001, Roeland Meyer escribió:
> > From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:55 PM
> > 
> > On 14 May 2001, at 18:21, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School 
> > of Law wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this 
> > much time to
> > > maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, 
> 
> > Unless the Secretariat is reading every message (totally 
> 
> > if at all on a daily basis.  Spending twenty hours to set up 
> > six lists 
> > boggles the mind, IMO.  Unless there is a tremendous amount of 
> 
> Not if one had to set them up from scratch, including majordomo, and
> learning how to do it in the process. Then, it sort of makes sense. However,
> if that were the case, there are quite a few that would have assisted, that
> DO know what they're doing.

I don't think this is the case because AFNIC technicians had setted up Majordomo
since the very first moment a mailing list existed for GA, and this was...long
time ago.

Best Regards
Vany

> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
- -- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
IT Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 230-4011 exrt 213
Fax: (507) 230-3455
e-mail:  [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:13:26 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

- --------------A2475CF1B578FFD2570B2261
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Perhaps the inflated time figures Elizabeth quoted have something to do with the
> fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does at sea level?

You're going to hate me for this.   Water "boils" when it has reached a temperature
at which its vapor pressure nearly matches that of the atmosphere. Since atmospheric
pressure is lower at higher altitudes, water boils at a lower temperature.  Thus,
what
takes longer at higher altitudes is not getting the water to boil, but rather the
cooking,
since it occurs at a lower temperature.

So maybe that's why the cooking that takes so long, huh?  But how come we have
a higher altitude?

Never mind.

Bill Lovell

- --------------A2475CF1B578FFD2570B2261
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Perhaps the inflated time figures Elizabeth quoted
have something to do with the
<br>fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does
at sea level?</blockquote>
You're going to hate me for this.&nbsp;&nbsp; Water "boils" when it has
reached a temperature
<br>at which its vapor pressure nearly matches that of the atmosphere.
Since atmospheric
<br>pressure is lower at higher altitudes, water boils at a lower temperature.&nbsp;
Thus, what
<br>takes longer at higher altitudes is not getting the water to boil,
but rather the cooking,
<br>since it occurs at a lower temperature.
<p>So maybe that's why the <i>cooking</i> that takes so long, huh?&nbsp;
But how come we have
<br>a higher altitude?
<p>Never mind.
<p>Bill Lovell
<br>&nbsp;</html>

- --------------A2475CF1B578FFD2570B2261--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:17:47 -0500
From: Andy Gardner <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

At 10:52 pm -0400 5/14/01, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>Perhaps the inflated time figures Elizabeth quoted have something to do
>with the
>fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does at sea
>level?

Perhaps it's just a sign of French bureaucracy?

a.) Maybe it required a requisition form B503 be signed by 15 department
heads, sub heads, and project managers, then sent to some unknown Govt dept
for a stamp, then submitted in triplicate to the Bureau of Internet Mail
Server Monitoring for approval.

Separate applications required for each list, of course.

Maybe that's where the 20 hours got eaten up?

b.) Or was it a standard computer company inflated quote, designed in the
knowledge that the person approving the expenditure knows absolutely
nothing about the real cost of a service?

a) or b), Elizabeth?

- -- 
Andrew P. Gardner
barcelona.com stolen, stmoritz.com stays. What's uniform about the UDRP?
We could ask ICANN to send WIPO a clue, but do they have any to spare?
Get active: http://www.domain-owners.org http://www.tldlobby.com
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:22:49 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] 2001-2002 Budget

Hello L,

Monday, May 14, 2001, 4:29:58 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> I think the issue has, in fact, been discussed by many on the GA list 
> and it is definitely an area of concern that we should all address.  I see 
> no reason why our Chair should have refrained from sending this 
> message.

No, it was not discussed until AFTER he sent the message stating it
was the position of the assembly.

He should have sent the message, no question, but NOT as a position of
the assembly.  We did not elect him to express his own opinions as
ours.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:42:55 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

Hello L,

Saturday, May 12, 2001, 1:28:13 PM, L Gallegos wrote:

> This seems to me to be a fair suggestion, Peter.  For that matter, if you 
> are going to be there, I would certainly nominate you as interim chair for 
> the Stockholm meeting in the absence of our Chair and Alternate Chair.

Wouldn't his position on the NC be the same type of conflict, Leah?

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:[email-masked]
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:27:15 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the inflated time figures Elizabeth quoted have something to
>> do with the
>> fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does
>> at sea level?
>
> You're going to hate me for this.   Water "boils" when it has reached
> a temperature
> at which its vapor pressure nearly matches that of the atmosphere.
> Since atmospheric
> pressure is lower at higher altitudes, water boils at a lower
> temperature.  Thus, what
> takes longer at higher altitudes is not getting the water to boil, but
> rather the cooking,
> since it occurs at a lower temperature.
>
> So maybe that's why the cooking that takes so long, huh?

Of course you're correct.  I was actually remembering a time when I was
cooking a pasta dish at a campsite 2459m above sea level...  It took an
inordinately long time to get the pasta cooked, as you rightly pointed
out.
Nonetheless, it still got done faster than Elizabeth's majordomo mailing
lists!

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 05:38:19 +1000
From: "Erica Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Without knowing the details on this, I imagine much of the time was spent in
clarifying with the GA officials the list requirements, rules, etc.

erica
- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 4:04 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

> Hi Michael:
>
> I am agree with you.  I cannot believe the figures shown by Elizabeth.
> I also administrate Linux server with several services including mailing
> lists and to me only takes 5 minutes to one mailing list and maybe two
> hours per week for maintenance but not two hourse per day.  It is
> exagerate.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
>
>
>
> On Mon, 14 May 2001, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:
>
> > I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this much time to
> > maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, and they don't
> > take anything close to that amount of time.
> >
> > On Tue, 15 May 2001, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Roberto Gaetano wrote on 14.05.01, 21:11:26:
> > > > I would second Roeland's comment below:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >>I share the incredulity... the answer is ... not much. Especially
> > > >>considering that the ga-full is not moderated. It was the compromise
that
> > > >>enabled moderation on the GA list.
> > > >
> > > > I think that the NC should reconsider the matter, because closing
down the
> > > > GA-full will definitively destabilize the compromise achieved one
year ago.
> > > > The idea to restart from scratch the whole discussion about
monitoring and
> > > > censorship, right now that we seem to start making some progress, is
> > > > frightening.
> > >
> > > I have listened to the Names Council teleconference
> > > meeting (thanks, Bret!), and it turns out that,
> > > according to the Secretariat, the setup time for
> > > the five new GA sublists was about *twenty* hours of
> > > secretariat work, the typical maintenance costs are about
> > > *two* hours per day (Philip Sheppard referring to figures by
> > > Elisabeth Porteneuve, DNSO Secretariat; unfortunately it
> > > is very much at the end of the 14 MB audio file Bret Fausett
> > > recorded).
> > >   http://www.lextext.com/nc05092001.html
> > >
> > > If you listen to the NC discussion of the issue, you
> > > will probably /not/ get the impression that this is a ploy
> > > to silence the uncomfortable voices or something alike
> > > [just to make sure: I'm obviously not addressing Roberto
> > > here!]. Philip Sheppard: "As I understand, for reasons of
> > > history, there are two main GA lists, one of which was
> > > designed to be entirely open, the other one was moderated.
> > > The one [list] that is moderated is the one that is used
> > > by hundreds, and the one that's entirely open tends to
> > > be used as a duplicate list and has a current subscription
> > > of about ten; and I was wondering if it was not time, in
> > > terms of being pragmatic, to suggest the closure of that
> > > list in light of these new five, which would save a
> > > little bit of administrative time." The other NC members
> > > agreed.
> > >
> > > This said, I agree with Roberto that the GA-full list should
> > > be continued nonetheless. I would assume that any tasks
> > > connected with archiving and dealing with subscriptions
> > > are much more time-consuming for all the other lists. The
> > > GA-full has very few subscribers and, as Roberto mentions,
> > > the fact that it is unmoderated should make the administration
> > > even easier. There is little to be gained moneywise,
> > > but there is a real risk of returning to an earlier point and
> > > state of discussion which we had hoped to have gotten past.
> > >
> > > I ask Philip and the other NC members to reconsider this step,
> > > especially as it is indeed the /moderation/ which requires
> > > extra work:
> > >   http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00301.html
> > >
> > > Best regards,
> > > /// Alexander
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> IT Specialist
> Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
> Tel: (507) 230-4011 ext 213
> Fax: (507) 230-3455
> e-mail: [email-masked]
> http://www.sdnp.org.pa
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:04:31 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 8:02 PM

> Roeland:
> 
> El lun, 14 may 2001, Roeland Meyer escribió:
> > > From: L Gallegos [mailto:[email-masked]]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 14, 2001 4:55 PM
> > > 
> > > On 14 May 2001, at 18:21, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School 
> > > of Law wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm sorry, but I simply cannot imagine how it can take this 
> > > much time to
> > > > maintain a list.  We have dozens here at the law school, 
> > 
> > > Unless the Secretariat is reading every message (totally 
> > 
> > > if at all on a daily basis.  Spending twenty hours to set up 
> > > six lists 
> > > boggles the mind, IMO.  Unless there is a tremendous amount of 
> > 
> > Not if one had to set them up from scratch, including majordomo, and
> > learning how to do it in the process. Then, it sort of 
> makes sense. However,
> > if that were the case, there are quite a few that would 
> have assisted, that
> > DO know what they're doing.
> 
> I don't think this is the case because AFNIC technicians had 
> setted up Majordomo
> since the very first moment a mailing list existed for GA, 
> and this was...long
> time ago.

Do you realize that you just shot down the only possible excuse?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:22:49 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Austerity measures

Can anyway provide an example of censorship exercised on the ga moderated
list in the last 12 months?

Philip.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 09:53:08 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

On 2001-05-15 09:22:49 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>Can anyway provide an example of censorship exercised on the ga 
>moderated list in the last 12 months?

It's instructive to look at the mailing list archive pages at

       <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/maillist.html>

and

    <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga-full/Arc07/maillist.html>.

Both archive sections start on April 3, 2001.  According to the 
summaries on the bottom of these pages, ga-full had 2101 posts, 
while ga had 1741.

- -- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 01:20:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

The label "Censorship" is inflammatory hyperbole used to inflate and inflame
the issue of moderation. Like labeling inclusive root operators "rogue", it
is a tactic used to prevent civilised discussion on the subject, in this
case ... moderation. In the other case, it is multiple root zone systems. It
is a proven tactic, unfortunately. In both cases, constructive discussion is
stifled. What happens is that those who feel that they are painted with the
label are compelled to defend against the unreasonable assault whilst those
making the assualt continue it in feined reasonablness. All the while,
bandwidth gets burnt on deconstructive discussion about the mis-labeling,
rather than any significant points actually related to the subject at hand.
IOW, it's a rat-hole. But, it is one that can't be ignored.

I am sure that others will argue with this assessment. This will probably be
users of such inflammatory hyperbole or those that are too "green" to
recognise it for what it truely is. However, I've seen this tactic used
since IFNA (International Fido Net Association) days and seen it be really
well developed in UseNet (has that really been over 15 years, wow!).
Therefore, I am not fooled, although others might be. Even though I
recognise it, I also recognise that one can't have reasonable
debate/discussion in its presence. It creates too hostile of an environment
for reasonableness. The work-product of such an environment is always
heavily biased. There is no way to avoid such behavior from poisoning a
discussion. Personally, when I see such behavior in a group, I tend to
discount any work-product of that group, as do most others that recognise
the tactic for what it is. This even includes groups wherein I may be a
participant.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Sheppard [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 12:23 AM
> 
> Can anyway provide an example of censorship exercised on the 
> ga moderated list in the last 12 months?
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:30:35 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Thomas, thanks for the link to the archives. Doesn't this highlight the
issue? There is vast duplication.

Looking at other DNSO stats
the ga moderated list has 299 members
the ga full list has 10 members all of whom are members of the ga moderated
list.

What is being gained here? At best ga members receive each message twice.
Isn't this list the result of a supposed problem that has not happened?
Philip

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:21:55 +0200
From: Alexander Svensson <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Hello Phillip,

> Thomas, thanks for the link to the archives. Doesn't this highlight the
> issue? There is vast duplication.

Well, it not so surprising that there is duplication,
considering that GA-full is GA *plus* the postings
of people temporarily banned according to the list rules.

> Looking at other DNSO stats
> the ga moderated list has 299 members
> the ga full list has 10 members all of whom are members of the ga moderated
> list.

GA: 266, GA-digest: 9, GA-full: 17

> What is being gained here? At best ga members receive each message twice.

I don't think anyone signed up for both lists. It is
a question of *choice* -- GA members choose whether
they want moderation or not (GA-full readers may want
to use their own killfilters). The vast majority has
indeed opted for the GA with list rules.

> Isn't this list the result of a supposed problem that has not happened?

The list is a result of a heated discussion regarding
a potential problem which -- at least in my view, but
maybe me being a list monitor makes me biased ;) --
has not happened and I hope will never happen.

Taking away the choice may make further discussions
about breaches of the list rules resemble the bitter
struggles before the two lists compromise was reached.

Best regards,
/// Alexander
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 02:39:22 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Austerity measures

> Taking away the choice may make further discussions
> about breaches of the list rules resemble the bitter
> struggles before the two lists compromise was reached.

I'd say that was pretty much guaranteed.
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:54:11 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  2001-2002 Budget

Dear Leah,
On 19:04 13/05/01, L Gallegos said:
>Danny Younger has said he will be in Stockholm, so the GA chair will
>be present.

Yes. I though that painting an awfull picture of what could happen if he 
was not here, would help him documenting to his employers why he had to 
attend or would force his decision.

I do not know if I will go there as Danny has sterilized this GA. No much 
worth for my money.
Will you go? Might be more rewarding to have a TLDA meeting?
Jefsey

>On 13 May 2001, at 13:23, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
>
> > This is a political appreciation, I partly share.
> >
> > You would be right if the DNSO is independent from the
> > iCANN as the funding aspects tend to show it. But the
> > DNSO is not an independent organization - as recently
> > reminded here - it is part of the global iCANN structure.
> >
> > Depending on the laws and usages when a committee
> > Chair is not here, the Chair of the assembly this commitee
> > belongs to is a valid and natural interim with authority. If
> > the DNSO has no Chair in Stockholm, the "upper Chair"
> > is Vint. Also, Vint is by right Member of the GA.
> >
> > This is why I say we need to decide about a legitimate
> > Chair for Stockholm.
> >
> > Jefsey
> >
> >
> > On 22:21 12/05/01, L Gallegos said:
> > >Jefsey:
> > >
> > >No BoD member should chair the GA.  It would be a definite conflict,
> > >IMO.
> > >
> > >On 12 May 2001, at 12:47, Jefsey Morfin wrote:
> > >
> > > > This is an urgent matter to address.
> > > >
> > > > Could our legal gurus advise so we may vote asap on it.
> > > > Otherwise we will receive a mail from Danny telling us
> > > > wich solution the GA has decided.
> > > >
> > > > Question: Could Vint chair the GA assembly (this would
> > > > put him in front of the problems)? Who is to decide: the
> > > > GA or the NC (I suppose the NC is the only one to be
> > > > able to decide of a Proxy, but the GA may suggest a name).
> > > >
> > > > Which alternate name would you want to put forward?
> > > >
> > > > Jefsey
> > > >
> > > > On 07:08 12/05/01, Joop Teernstra said:
> > > > >At 10:46 11/05/01 -0400, vint cerf wrote:
> > > > > >is there any reason to think that GA could pool limited resources to
> > > > > >fund a couple of representatives to attend? I know that's easy to
> > > > > >say - just wondering if such an idea had been considered?
> > > > >
> > > > >As it is, the chair and alt-chair are not getting any funding to
> > > > >attend Stockholm. How are we going to have a physical GA, this time?
> > > >

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:43:20 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

- --=====================_29869337==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Dear WSL,
you are quite right. This is why you beter have to order French Fries
in Brussels than in Tahoe. :-)

On 05:13 15/05/01, William S. Lovell said:
>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:
>>Perhaps the inflated time figures Elizabeth quoted have something to do 
>>with the
>>fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does at 
>>sea level?
>You're going to hate me for this.   Water "boils" when it has reached a 
>temperature
>at which its vapor pressure nearly matches that of the atmosphere. Since 
>atmospheric
>pressure is lower at higher altitudes, water boils at a lower 
>temperature.  Thus, what
>takes longer at higher altitudes is not getting the water to boil, but 
>rather the cooking,
>since it occurs at a lower temperature.
>
>So maybe that's why the cooking that takes so long, huh?  But how come we 
>have
>a higher altitude?
>Never mind.

Yes, I mind. I suppose that Elisabeth does not take more
time than anyone else to set-up and manage majordomo.

But the "cooking" most probably takes a lot of time. You
refered to the nebulous "DNSO decision process"; here it
is. The AFNIC charges by the clock, not by the task.

The very dicussion about the ga-full ML has probably costed
100 years of ga-full ML budget:
- -  duration of the conference call by all NC attendees,
- -  time spent be Elisabeth in listening and responding to
    questions everyone in our trade should know the general
    response but she has to dig into details,
- -  reporting it,
- -  reading all our mails,
- -  discussing with her boss, Philip Sheppard and so on about
    a possible response to Sotiris,
- -  calling Danny to know if he is OK not to do permit a vote
    about it (who knows?),  if he will help to settle, against
    what, discussing it with NC people, etc...

Now the 6 Danny/Patrick articials lists have demanded
most probably much, much more.... Plus all the time
and dedication of Patrick, all of us being bored, our time
lost in parallel mails to ask one another  who is actually
benefiting from this, who is paying, etc...

When Patrick does not know how to respond a remark
on his lists he fakes not understanding it, then he may
call on Elisabeth's support. We have to pay for that.

When Danny wants the pages changed, an explanation
on how the Secretariat works, it takes certainly time
to Elisabeth to respond or to call back if she does
some other task (please remember that due to the time
difference it most probably makes long hours for her).

When Phillip, or M... or P... or K... or X,Y, Z wants
to know what Danny asked, what is the trend on the
GA, etc.... they probably call Elisabeth or send her
a mail.... Someone is certainly telling Vint, Stuart,
etc.. when they should respond. This could fall into
DNSO Secretariat's duties.

Elisabeth is not GA Secretariat. She is DNSO:
hence NC. You see what the uncessary NC costs.

There are most probably many many other details
the Secretariat has to attend or politicking issues it is
involved into (Elisabeth is also on the NC and is a trusted
person by most, so many are probably calling on her).

And all of this for ... nothing productive. These are
the "iCANN hidden meetings". Small costly nothings
just for the "power"'s fun of a few. Just ask yourself
how much Danny, Chuck,  Kent, Marilyn and some
other cost to their employers. You will then agree that
Elisabeth is very cheap and efficient.

You see why I say that these artificial lists are just
a way to make sure nothing develops out of Registrars,
BoD, Staff, Chair's and some individual's control.

Elisabeth, I may be wrong in this evaluation, but from
my own Secretariat management and job definition
for the currently open position, I suppose I am not
that far away.

I just want to add something: because Elisabeth is
from the ccTLDs and on the NC, she is independent
minded. And she certainly protects this list from
many interferences and amplifies some good points
for us (however surprised we may be on some
ccTLDs positions she may support).

The real problem is not the cost (once trimed down
as much as possible), it is the financing mecanism.
 From several details I feel that Vint/Stuart's reign may
somewhat differ from Esther/Mike's one on this kind
of issues. May be the DoC's attitude and this list
positions do help the iCANN getting real.

Jefsey

PS. I whish Greg Burton had made it through with
        the planned "byconsensus" center of interest,
        and come with some DNSO management
        automated tool, so we might focus on real
        issues.

>Bill Lovell
>

- --=====================_29869337==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Dear WSL, <br>
you are quite right. This is why you beter have to order French Fries
<br>
in Brussels than in Tahoe. :-)<br>
<br>
On 05:13 15/05/01, William S. Lovell said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote: <br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Perhaps the inflated time figures
Elizabeth quoted have something to do with the <br>
fact that water takes longer to boil in high altitudes than it does at
sea level?</blockquote>You're going to hate me for this.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Water &quot;boils&quot; when it has reached a temperature <br>
at which its vapor pressure nearly matches that of the atmosphere. Since
atmospheric <br>
pressure is lower at higher altitudes, water boils at a lower
temperature.&nbsp; Thus, what <br>
takes longer at higher altitudes is not getting the water to boil, but
rather the cooking, <br>
since it occurs at a lower temperature. <br>
<br>
So maybe that's why the <i>cooking</i> that takes so long, huh?&nbsp; But
how come we have <br>
a higher altitude? <br>
Never mind. </blockquote><br>
Yes, I mind. I suppose that Elisabeth does not take more <br>
time than anyone else to set-up and manage majordomo. <br>
<br>
But the &quot;cooking&quot; most probably takes a lot of time. You <br>
refered to the nebulous &quot;DNSO decision process&quot;; here it<br>
is. The AFNIC charges by the clock, not by the task. <br>
<br>
The very dicussion about the ga-full ML has probably costed <br>
100 years of ga-full ML budget: <br>
- -&nbsp; duration of the conference call by all NC attendees, <br>
- -&nbsp; time spent be Elisabeth in listening and responding to <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; questions everyone in our trade should know the general
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; response but she has to dig into details,<br>
- -&nbsp; reporting it, <br>
- -&nbsp; reading all our mails, <br>
- -&nbsp; discussing with her boss, Philip Sheppard and so on about <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; a possible response to Sotiris, <br>
- -&nbsp; calling Danny to know if he is OK not to do permit a vote<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; about it (who knows?),&nbsp; if he will help to settle,
against <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp; what, discussing it with NC people, etc... <br>
<br>
Now the 6 Danny/Patrick articials lists have demanded <br>
most probably much, much more.... Plus all the time <br>
and dedication of Patrick, all of us being bored, our time<br>
lost in parallel mails to ask one another&nbsp; who is actually <br>
benefiting from this, who is paying, etc... <br>
<br>
When Patrick does not know how to respond a remark<br>
on his lists he fakes not understanding it, then he may <br>
call on Elisabeth's support. We have to pay for that.<br>
<br>
When Danny wants the pages changed, an explanation<br>
on how the Secretariat works, it takes certainly time<br>
to Elisabeth to respond or to call back if she does <br>
some other task (please remember that due to the time<br>
difference it most probably makes long hours for her).<br>
<br>
When Phillip, or M... or P... or K... or X,Y, Z wants <br>
to know what Danny asked, what is the trend on the<br>
GA, etc.... they probably call Elisabeth or send her<br>
a mail.... Someone is certainly telling Vint, Stuart,<br>
etc.. when they should respond. This could fall into<br>
DNSO Secretariat's duties. <br>
<br>
Elisabeth is not GA Secretariat. She is DNSO:<br>
hence NC. You see what the uncessary NC costs.<br>
<br>
There are most probably many many other details<br>
the Secretariat has to attend or politicking issues it is<br>
involved into (Elisabeth is also on the NC and is a trusted<br>
person by most, so many are probably calling on her).<br>
<br>
And all of this for ... nothing productive. These are<br>
the &quot;iCANN hidden meetings&quot;. Small costly nothings<br>
just for the &quot;power&quot;'s fun of a few. Just ask yourself <br>
how much Danny, Chuck,&nbsp; Kent, Marilyn and some<br>
other cost to their employers. You will then agree that <br>
Elisabeth is very cheap and efficient.<br>
<br>
You see why I say that these artificial lists are just<br>
a way to make sure nothing develops out of Registrars,<br>
BoD, Staff, Chair's and some individual's control.<br>
<br>
Elisabeth, I may be wrong in this evaluation, but from <br>
my own Secretariat management and job definition<br>
for the currently open position, I suppose I am not<br>
that far away. <br>
<br>
I just want to add something: because Elisabeth is<br>
from the ccTLDs and on the NC, she is independent<br>
minded. And she certainly protects this list from <br>
many interferences and amplifies some good points<br>
for us (however surprised we may be on some <br>
ccTLDs positions she may support). <br>
<br>
The real problem is not the cost (once trimed down<br>
as much as possible), it is the financing mecanism. <br>
 From several details I feel that Vint/Stuart's reign may <br>
somewhat differ from Esther/Mike's one on this kind <br>
of issues. May be the DoC's attitude and this list <br>
positions do help the iCANN getting real.<br>
&nbsp;<br>
Jefsey<br>
<br>
<br>
PS. I whish Greg Burton had made it through with <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the planned &quot;byconsensus&quot;
center of interest,<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; and come with some DNSO
management<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; automated tool, so we might focus on
real <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Bill Lovell <br>
&nbsp; </blockquote></html>

- --=====================_29869337==_.ALT--

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #460
************************