Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #461
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 461

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:10:51 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Philip,

Let me add a couple of words to Alexander's comments below.

>
>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.
>

Plus spam messages (and generally speaking submissions from non-members), 
that are filtered.

>
>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.

Additionally, there will be very little advantage (timewise) in abolishing 
the ga-full, IMHO, as it is completely unmoderated and therefore will 
require less work than the other lists.
OTOH, I would not recommend to shut down the moderated list either, as the 
vast majority of the subscriber seem to prefer (and implicitely endorse) the 
monitoring effort.

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:14:21 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

On 2001-05-15 10:30:35 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

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

The duplication is by design: Those who subscribe to ga-full get ALL 
messages which are ever sent to ga.  Those who subscribe to ga only 
get those messages which pass the filters.

>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?

I think that ga-full is important, even though it has just 17 
subscribers (according to majordomo): It adds a lot of transparency 
to the moderation (or filtering, or censoring - you can call this 
whatever you want) process on ga.  In particular, everyone can 
compare the archives of the two lists, and thus monitor the kind of 
moderation (filtering, ...) of the ga list.

This kind of transparency helps to protect the list chairs and 
monitors from allegations of hidden agendas or censorship of valid 
messages.  It also protects the list from discussions and flame wars 
which would inevitably be the consequence of such allegations.

Put in simpler words, ga-full solves the "who monitors the monitors" 
problem by making their work public.

Removing the ga-full list would most likely have unpleasant 
side-effects on the filtered ga list, and make it even less usable 
than it is now.

Don't do it.

- -- 
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 10:25:08 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

Leah,

You wrote:
>On 14 May 2001, at 21:52, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> > I would not recommend, for the time being, to create a separate SO for
> > users, but to encourage the users that may feel the interest to 
>participate
> > in the existing ones.
>
>Which ones, Roberto?  Isn't that the point?  There are no SO's where
>they fit.  There would be the @large if it existed.  IMO, that is the place
>for users to have input.  It would need to be organized and recognized,
>of course and this is precisely the point about which Danny wrote in his
>message.  IMO, it is very pertinent to the GA discussions.

Sorry, I was less clear than I thought.
My argument was in favour of user participation in the supporting 
organizations, and, inter alia, the DNSO.
How? First answer: the GA. Second answer: possibly a constituency.
For the other SOs, I would assume the similar would hold, but it is 
something that will be discussed elsewhere.
Bill Lowell raised the point of the AtLarge: indeed there's room there, but 
there is still a lot of work to do to build a more permanent structure that 
will allow AtLarge members to communicate.

Last but not least, of course this subject is pertinent to the GA 
discussions - I would never had taken the risk of being suspended for 
out-of-scope posting ;>)

Regards
Roberto

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.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: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:36:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Fwd: GA Lists administration

> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:24:25 +0200 (MET DST)
> From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [council] List administration
> 
> 
> Philip,
> 
> Thank you for taking on your shoulders the mailing list
> issue during the last NC call.
> 
> It is unfortunate I had a plane to catch and could not 
> give some clarification by myself.
> 
> 
> Setting up lists on the DNSO is not only a short technical
> exercise.
> 
> The majority of time on new GA lists was spent in clarifying
> with new and old GA Chairs and List Monitors the lists
> requirements, the rules applied to each list and the rules
> applied accross lists. The procedures for posting rights
> handling, the synchronization between Lists Monitors decision
> and Secretariat, the timely technical implementation.
> 
> There is more than 1300 subscribers to all active DNSO lists
> (more than 900 different e-mail addresses), and more than 300
> subscribers to the DNSO Voting Registry.
> The DNSO lists maintenance duties includes watching technical
> problems as well as bounces handling and providing answers to those
> who get lost and ask for help in unsubscribing or modifying
> addresses. Depending on traffic (either induced by e-mail addresses
> belonging to lists, and which may have temporary or permanent
> problems, or by cross posting, or by spaming, by chain-mails,
> by some automated answers, etc.), the usual load at listadmin
> is more than two hundred delivery-reports two times a day.
> 
> 
> As for my opinion for ga and ga-full lists, they are both
> associated and in equilibrum, adopted by the GA members
> after several months of work by former Chairs, Roberto Gaetano
> and Harald Alvestrand.
> Closing the ga-full list is not an independent decision, and may
> destabilize the compromise achieved one year ago.
> 
> I am asking the NC Colleagues to reconsider this.
> 
> Elisabeth Porteneuve
> 
> 

- --
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 08:29:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

What issue?  One list runs on auto-pilot, requiring NO work at all
(ga-full); the other one requires filters to keep people who are not
allowed to post off it (ga-limited or whatever it's called).  Obviously
there is duplicaiton since by design one is a sub-set of the other.

It is false to say that people who are on ga-full are 'members' of
ga-limited.  It may be that ga-limited echos their posts, but they are NOT
subscribers.  I know, because I am a subscriber to ga-full but no other ga
list. 

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> 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-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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 14:52:12 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Dear Philip,
I am sorry but you are right on target:

- - I will not accept Roealnd's evaluation for now and will address
   this seriously.

- - the whole list is censored from the day you followed my
   suggestion to have Mr. Young as a Chair. I apologized for that
   mistake.

I am against any form of censorhip so I am on the ga-full. I
however fully accept the filtered ga as an help to keep the
ga-full intersting. But I want the most interesting information
(why people are extfiltered: they often represent market
or innovative trends not yet accepted or still ill worded).
Since this is a part of my financial reason to participate,
should the ga-full be removed I would make everything to
obtain that information through the "censored" list to the
detriment of its peace. We are here to work, to get feeds
back, to achieve personnal agenda... not to drink Vint's
cup of tea.

On 09:22 15/05/01, Philip Sheppard said:
>Can anyway provide an example of censorship exercised on
>the ga moderated list in the last 12 months?
>Philip.

You are true. There never have been censorship on the ga
moderated list as long as Mr. Roberto Gaetano was the Chair.
Except may be - but it was a mutually accepted act - against
Dr. Baptista.

You may now want to consider that since Mr. Danny Young
has been approved as a Chair by the NC, upon GA vote:

- - not a single motion has even been acknowledged while
   many have been presented

- - not a single vote has been taken or is under preparation

- - all the important subjects have been definitely censored in
   being exfiltered to artificial MLs under tight control (list
   monitoring, common regulation, etc..) without ANY
   approbation nor even consultation of the GA

- - that the Chair has issued several letters - as put by
   Roberto - "in emergency" on behalf of the whole GA
   but has not - as commented by Roberto - yet polled the
   approbation of he GA

- - Mr. Jeff Williams and Mr. Eric Dierker have been
   excluded on disputable grounds and the GA has been
   denied the possibility of an appeal IRT Mr. Dierker
   explicitly filtered out because of his positions against
   the Chair as a "dotcommer".

- - Some Chair positions have been published as based
   upon personal censoring and appreciations of external
   MLs (WG-R, IDNO, icann-europe).

I am really embarrassed to acknowledge this. It means
that the GA was not mature enough to carry this election
after the departure of the consensual candidate.

But this is also a positive thing.

- - we gained experience and may find a solution
   (should the subject not censored by Chairs)

- - I used to campaigned against constituencies and the
   existing NC.  I am still opposed to the current
   constituency system (even more if we consider the
   ga-full handling) but I learned the priority of the
   required "wise  people" council. The NC could be
   it, should the Individual Users, the SMEs, the
   individual domain name holders, the RSCs and non
   legacy TLDs be represented.

I thank you for your concern and your time. Your
response will show who was right, Roeland or me.
I do hope I am. Otherwise I will agree 100% with
Roeland.

Jefsey

- --
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 15:51:05 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [ga-roots] Community Roots or Red Herrings

This interesting post of Dassa clarifies a few thngs.

On 15:41 15/05/01, Jeff Williams said:
> > Internet name spaces.  I am currently on one such name space.  It is
> > totally under my control and I use the TLD .dhs.  I have also noted a
> > member of the GA has recently initiated an application to register this TLD
> > under one of the so called alternative roots.

I am glad that Dassa use that wording now. I have told him that
he owed to his customers to protect their rights against some
commercial usage of their normal TLD. Dassa offers an important
SLD service as dhs.org.

Dassa refusing at that time to use the word TLD and even the
concept I told him that I felt of my duty as one of the RSC to
protect his customers rights and I published the I was taking the
".dhs" to protect someone's existing rights. I fully informed
Dassa of this.

There is an unique name space including every name the human
being may think of. There are sub-space for languages, names,
geographical places, etc... etc...

Among them there is the DNS  name space with different
semantics. One of these semantic (3LD.SLD.TLD) is of a
certain use today. It creates sub-DNS name spaces if you
all the DNs including the same component.

- - registeries are in charge of the name spaces sharing the
   same TLD.
- - the WIPO protects the TM sub-name space,and has
   decided it intersected the DNS name space. This intersection
   they say is when they share a name as a TM and a SLD.
- - I develop a system where the sub.name-space shares
   3LDs.

>Ah, you say, the TLD you use
> > isn't accessible from the Internet and doesn't count.  If users connect to
> > name servers I provide it would be accessible, much like others.  That it
> > doesn't currently may be a criteria to use in judging if it should be taken
> > into consideration or it might not.  BTW...I have used this TLD for over 2
> > years.
>
>Great!  Make you TLD inclusive than!  I am sure some stakeholders
>would welcome it!  >;)

They will. And the inclusive, fully protected (against Dassa's
actions at least) ".dhs" TLD waits for him to take it when he
wants (or his users demand it).

Jefsey

- --
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 10:44:21 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Fwd: GA Lists administration

Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> > Setting up lists on the DNSO is not only a short technical
> > exercise.

But technically it is.  At least you admit this much, Elisabeth.

> >
> > The majority of time on new GA lists was spent in clarifying
> > with new and old GA Chairs and List Monitors the lists
> > requirements, the rules applied to each list and the rules
> > applied accross lists.

Where is the record of this "clarifying"?  What exactly was the substance
of the "clarification"?  The rules of the lists remained the same as the
rules of the GA list.  So, again, where is the evidence for this
"clarifying".  BTW, what would you (Elisabeth) have to do with list
rules? Surely this is a bogus excuse, I don't think anyone actually buys
this!  So please, point us to the deliberations you had with the Chair,
co-Chair, and past Chair(s), for transpareny's sake...  Perhaps Danny or
patrick, or Roberto, or Harald can help out here?

> The procedures for posting rights
> > handling, the synchronization between Lists Monitors decision
> > and Secretariat, the timely technical implementation.

What "procedures" for posting rights specifically?  The "synchronization"
between List Monitors decision and Secretariat?!?!?!  You can't seriously
believe we're swallowing this stuff?!  A simple email from the List
Monitors to the Secratariat does not require any great "synchronization"!
especially since the List Monitors have had practically nothing to do!
Elisabeth, either you think we are very stupid, or...

> > There is more than 1300 subscribers to all active DNSO lists
> > (more than 900 different e-mail addresses), and more than 300
> > subscribers to the DNSO Voting Registry.

So what?  The lists run themselves for the most part.  And when was there
ever a vote with 300 participants?   Anyway, I'm sure the 300 subscribers
to the Voting Registry are included in the 900 different email addresses
you cite.  So what exactly is your point?

> > The DNSO lists maintenance duties includes watching technical
> > problems as well as bounces handling and providing answers to those
> > who get lost and ask for help in unsubscribing or modifying
> > addresses.

Tell you what... the DNSO can hire me for HALF of what it costs them to
have you perform these functions.

> Depending on traffic (either induced by e-mail addresses
> > belonging to lists, and which may have temporary or permanent
> > problems, or by cross posting, or by spaming, by chain-mails,
> > by some automated answers, etc.), the usual load at listadmin
> > is more than two hundred delivery-reports two times a day.

"Depending on traffic" is the key phrase.  Frankly, I find it hard to
believe that "the usual load at listadmin
 is more than two hundred delivery-reports two times a day" (for a total
of 400), but even if it were true, unless these were all error messages
why would they warrant anything but routine glances?  In any case, can
you provide evidence of such volume for the last two weeks? or months?
I'm sure we'd all be interested in examining it.

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: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:50:11 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

         It does seem as if we have overwhelming consensus from all who 
have spoken, *including* Elisabeth (although not Philip), that abolition of 
ga-full would be undesirable:  It would destabilize a hard-fought 
compromise over moderation, it would remove the transparency of existing 
moderation, and it would introduce no appreciable cost savings.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

At 12:14 PM 5/15/2001 +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote:
>On 2001-05-15 10:30:35 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
>>Thomas, thanks for the link to the archives. Doesn't this highlight the 
>>issue? There is vast duplication.
>
>The duplication is by design: Those who subscribe to ga-full get ALL 
>messages which are ever sent to ga.  Those who subscribe to ga only get 
>those messages which pass the filters.
>
>>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?
>
>I think that ga-full is important, even though it has just 17 subscribers 
>(according to majordomo): It adds a lot of transparency to the moderation 
>(or filtering, or censoring - you can call this whatever you want) process 
>on ga.  In particular, everyone can compare the archives of the two lists, 
>and thus monitor the kind of moderation (filtering, ...) of the ga list.
>
>This kind of transparency helps to protect the list chairs and monitors 
>from allegations of hidden agendas or censorship of valid messages.  It 
>also protects the list from discussions and flame wars which would 
>inevitably be the consequence of such allegations.
>
>Put in simpler words, ga-full solves the "who monitors the monitors" 
>problem by making their work public.
>
>Removing the ga-full list would most likely have unpleasant side-effects 
>on the filtered ga list, and make it even less usable than it is now.
>
>Don't do it.
>
>--
>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

- --
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 11:01:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Just to note that subscribers were never offered an equal choice: all
members of the former ga list were subscribed to the ga-edited by default.
It's not surprising the default option wins.

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Philip,
> 
> Let me add a couple of words to Alexander's comments below.
> 
> >
> >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.
> >
> 
> Plus spam messages (and generally speaking submissions from non-members), 
> that are filtered.
> 
> >
> >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.
> 
> Additionally, there will be very little advantage (timewise) in abolishing 
> the ga-full, IMHO, as it is completely unmoderated and therefore will 
> require less work than the other lists.
> OTOH, I would not recommend to shut down the moderated list either, as the 
> vast majority of the subscriber seem to prefer (and implicitely endorse) the 
> monitoring effort.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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 23:08:38 +0800
From: Brian Appleby <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

- --=====================_4624144==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Hello,

I am on the ga-full list but not the moderated list and do not receive two 
copies of each message.

Somehow the data must be in error?

Personally I see no need for the moderated list.  If  some people do not 
like what others are saying, ignore them.  I would like to hear everyone 
all the time, then I can choose who to ignore.

And I never did see any reason why Eric was banned: I did go through the 
messages referenced in the announcement but did not see the comments which 
could validate the decision.    The new lists shunt members away from each 
other into smaller meeting rooms.   How about one,  full, interesting list 
and keep life simple and free?

I really don't know why people would subscribe to the moderated list and 
not the full list.

Regards,
Brian Appleby

At 10:30 AM 5/15/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>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-full" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --=====================_4624144==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
<font size=3>Hello,<br>
<br>
I am on the ga-full list but not the moderated list and do not receive
two copies of each message.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Somehow the data must be in error?<br>
<br>
Personally I see no need for the moderated list.&nbsp; If&nbsp; some
people do not like what others are saying, ignore them.&nbsp; I would
like to hear everyone all the time, then I can choose who to 
ignore.<br>
<br>
And I never did see any reason why Eric was banned: I did go through the
messages referenced in the announcement but did not see the comments
which could validate the decision.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The new lists shunt
members away from each other into smaller meeting rooms.&nbsp;&nbsp; How
about one,&nbsp; full, interesting list and keep life simple and
free?<br>
<br>
I really don't know why people would subscribe to the moderated list and
not the full list.&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Brian Appleby<br>
<br>
At 10:30 AM 5/15/01 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>Thomas, thanks for the link to the archives.
Doesn't this highlight the<br>
issue? There is vast duplication.<br>
<br>
Looking at other DNSO stats<br>
the ga moderated list has 299 members<br>
the ga full list has 10 members all of whom are members of the ga
moderated<br>
list.<br>
<br>
What is being gained here? At best ga members receive each message
twice.<br>
Isn't this list the result of a supposed problem that has not
happened?<br>
Philip<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
- --<br>
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.<br>
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe<br>
(&quot;unsubscribe ga-full&quot; in the body of the message).<br>
Archives at
<a href="http://www.dnso.org/archives.html" eudora="autourl">http://www.dnso.org/archives.html</a></font></blockquote></html>

- --=====================_4624144==_.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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 17:03:52 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

If it is not the will of the ga to reduce administrative time/costs by
removal of the most under-utilised list, is it possible to consider any
other of the ga's 9 lists ?
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 09:54:17 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] ICANN Announcement-.biz &.info

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DD25.016182B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

ICANN Announcement

15 May 2001

http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr15may01.htm

/Bruce

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DD25.016182B0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2462.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=3D2>
<CENTER><B><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+2>ICANN =
Announcement</FONT></B></CENTER>
<P></P>
<P>
<CENTER><EM><STRONG><FONT face=3DArial size=3D+1>15 May=20
2001</FONT></STRONG></EM></CENTER>
<CENTER><EM><FONT size=3D4></FONT></EM>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER><EM><FONT size=3D4><A=20
href=3D"http://www.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr15may01.htm">http://ww=
w.icann.org/announcements/icann-pr15may01.htm</A></FONT></EM></CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>/Bruce</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER>
<CENTER>&nbsp;</CENTER></FONT></STRONG></DIV></BODY></HTML>

- ------=_NextPart_000_0005_01C0DD25.016182B0--

- --
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 11:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

I think the clear consensus is to outsource the mailing list management
function to a more efficient provider.  

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

> If it is not the will of the ga to reduce administrative time/costs by
> removal of the most under-utilised list, is it possible to consider any
> other of the ga's 9 lists ?
> Philip
> 
> --
> 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
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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 17:15:30 +0200
From: "Philip Sheppard" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

 Is Miami School of Law offering to provide such a service?

- --
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 11:20:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

There are numerous free email services on the web who could do it even
more cheaply if one foregoes moderation and accepts the annoyance of an
advertisement on the message.  That would be my suggestion for an
'austerity measure'.  Can't beat free.  It may be that some of these
services allow the list moderater to ban certain posters - someone else on
this list may know?

If there is a formal requirements document in existence, I could make
enquiries as to what would be charged here, if you'd like, but it almost
certainly would not be free.  Since this is not our mail line of business,
I kind of doubt we are the least cost provider.  And I know we don't
provide 24/7 support - only business hours 5 days a week.  In any case,
please post the URL if such a document exists; others may also be
interested in it.

[I think I've now reached today's posting limit...]

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>  Is Miami School of Law offering to provide such a service?
> 
> 

- -- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                       -->It's hot here.<--

- --
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 12:02:57 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

"Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" wrote:

> I think the clear consensus is to outsource the mailing list management
> function to a more efficient provider.

If this is a motion, I second it. Here! Here!

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

>
>
> On Tue, 15 May 2001, Philip Sheppard wrote:
>
> > If it is not the will of the ga to reduce administrative time/costs by
> > removal of the most under-utilised list, is it possible to consider any
> > other of the ga's 9 lists ?
> > Philip
> >
> > --
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> --
>                 Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
> A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   [email-masked]
> U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
> +1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
>                        -->It's hot here.<--
>
> --
> 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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #461
************************