Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #463
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 15 2001            Volume 01 : Number 463

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:07:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

I would also concur wholeheartedly with these gentlemen.  Although
I could not resist jumping in with a little physical chemistry for the fun
of it -- partly because all good works should be leavened with some
amount of (at least attempted) humor, and although I had expressed
an "I don't care myself" response -- the fact remains that inordinate
amounts of time are being spent on this.  The issue is not the 20 hrs,
but the disappearance of a line of communication. 20 hours, even
at what lawyers would charge, is infinitesimal in comparison to the
ICANN budget, and with that famous "in progress" budget speaking
of added staff and added $millions, that cost bit seems to be a non-
starter. Even so, it has raised the suggestion "well, what other of the
9 lists should we consider eliminating?" In short, we've fallen into a
trap.

As Roeland Meyer has excellently pointed out, there now arises the
spectre of "censorship" which, like terms such as "rogue," is an
absolute magnet in drawing comment from all us democratically-
minded rabble (whose battle cry is often "tumult to the end!"),
which ultimately serves the single purpose of distracting all of
us from the real issues, which are such things as:

As Patrick points out today, what about WIPO-2?

What about whether "accredited registrars" are writing
the budget behind closed doors?

Does that bunch of 11,000 trademark lawyers really decide the
issue of having an Individual Constituency for ICANN?

Is this NC Working Group going to say (or do) anything
about that?

Problem is, issues of lists, banning, censorship, etc., have the
characteristic of being somewhat personal.  It's like if you
want to absorb the attention of a horse, you send in a horse fly.
The horse will ordinarily not be concerned with issues of
current market prices of hay and grain, nor does the contract
go to Jones' Feed Store or Smith's, but we are not horses.  We
allow ourselves to get distracted by trivia -- whether or not
this whole scene is a deliberate political tactic pumped up by
the powers that be so that they can go on with the process
of governing ICANN as they see fit, with little if any response
to the membership, is a question for another day.  But it is in
the interests of all of us, methinks, to concentrate on the really
important, long term, strategic issues, and not these irritants.

In any organization, there are direct routes, and indirect routes.
If the direct ones don't work, one uses the indirect ones. It is
also in the interests of all of us to keep ICANN whole, and
solid, and carrying out what it purports to be carrying out. If
the direct routes through established ICANN channels don't
work, one uses the indirect, i.e., the Congress, the IRS, the
California Attorney General, the courts, and so on. None of
these would come anywhere near the totally ill-advised notion
of "dumping ICANN," but would rather be a legitimate effort
to get ICANN on the track it was set up for. As a comparison,
corporate stockholders sue their boards all the time.  (This
analogy, of course, is a long way from being very accurate.)
But to run screaming to any of these alternative routes (not to
be confused with alternative roots!) one must have evidence.
Not to give any legal advice here, but the relevant terms would
be either malfeasance or nonfeasance, or both, or whatever
an actual detailed analysis of what has and has not been done,
would cough up. The more time is spent on trivia, the less is
available to get at what really counts.  "Moral victories" over
personal issues, however satisfying they may be, contribute
little to the real operation of ICANN. One can beat the issue of
list administration forever, while losing sight of the fact that
the whole purpose of these lists, which is raising substantive
issues and making informed and effective decisions, has then
been put off for yet another inordinate length of time.

In short, it's a "perspective" kind of thing -- if it's not fundamental
to what ICANN as a whole actually does, don't take the bait.

The suggestion, then, and while leaving entirely open the door
to any attempts at humor (essential to any organization, so that
we don't all end up looking like persimmon eaters), is to bypass
all those fly bites and concentrate on what it is that really makes
ICANN run, and does it do what it does in the fully public interest
as it is bound to by its Articles of Incorporation rather than catering
to the desires of special interest groups -- that spectre has been
raised, you know.

Bill Lovell

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> Good evening.
>
> 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.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
> (catching up with e-mail after a week offline)
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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

- --
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 13:09:03 -0400
From: "babybows.com" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re:  Austerity Measures

Philip Sheppard writes:  "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?"

I don't believe that the membership is arguing against the need to invoke
certain austerity measures at a time when a lack of funding has prompted the
NC to place in jeopardy the voting rights of our constituencies.  I am sure
that we will be willing to "do our part" and to consider cost-saving
options, as we are equally sure that the NC is looking into their own list
underutilization:

NC-Outreach - 1 comment posted since 4 Aug 2000
NC-Plan - 17 comments posted in total... last post on 21 Feb
NC-Review - last comment posted 19 Feb

The remaining lists, Council, Intake, and Budget could probably be
consolidated into one single list, as the collective needs of only 19
participants should not require more than a single list.

If the NC will show us (leadership by example) that it can adopt its own
cost-cutting measures, I am reasonably sure that the GA will be amenable to
closing one or more of its new lists.

- --
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 10:20:16 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

I see it as being pertinent, and Leah has the right answer.
I also think it would be good to kick start the @large.
Although strictly speaking the needs of "mere users" --
not a pejorative term -- don't fall under the aegis of the
DNSO, nevertheless the DNSO does have to concern
itself with its relationships with other SOs, the @large,
and on up.

L Gallegos 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.
>
> Leah
>

- --
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 12:29:37 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Erica:

Exactly, you don't know how easy is to create a mailing list.

List requirements are almost the same in all lists.  Closed or open,
monitored or unmonitored, with or without crossposting are things that you
setup very quickly if you know how to do it.  Rules of the list are things
that the GA Chair and not AFNIC has to stablish.  In fact, if rules are
similar from one list to another, it is just copy in the file
that is setted-up for welcome message the rules of the other list.

I think AFNIC technicall staff which (according to the report of
year 2000 expenses) are hired part time (part time for me  means 4 hours a
day dedicated only to DNSO servers),  are doing unnecesary steps.  It is
the only reason I can think know why a mailing list takes 4 hours to be
created.

There is other issue and are organizational.   In my opion, GA chairs are
the ones who sets rules, not the Secretariat.  Once GA Chair set rules,
then GA chair has to send a plain text files with rules of every list
(every file will be part of the Welcome Message that is automatically send to
every one that suscribes to any mailing list) to Elizabeth.  And then, and
only then it begins the process of creating mailings lists.
And this process just take five minutes for every mailing list.

If Elizabet needs any clarification on rules, this is not part of the
process of creation of mailing list.  The rules are the rules and has to
be posted as the GA indicated (again, she just have to put them in a file
that correspond to welcome message, she doesn't have to send a mail about
it every time that someone suscribes).  If futher clarification is needed
can be done paralelly to the creation of mailing list, not wait until she is
clear on the rules.

Also, as an organizational thing, the GA chair has to send to Elizabeth
all the requirements (open, closed, etc) in their requests to create a
mailing list.  Doing this (and I suppouse that is always done) Elizabeth
(or the technical staff of AFNIC) only have to create the mailing
list...and this just takes five minutes!

Best Regards
Vany

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Erica Roberts wrote:

> 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
> >
>

- -- 
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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 18:30:14 +0200
From: Thomas Roessler <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

On 2001-05-15 11:13:19 -0400, 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.

As an alternative, Elisabeth could tell the GA how precisely the 
apparently exorbitant cost and effort for the mailing list 
management is generated, and we (that is, the GA, the NC, and AFNIC) 
could look how this cost could be minimized.  From what we have 
learned from the NC teleconference's transcript (thanks to Bret and 
Alexander), there MUST be ample room for improvements.

- -- 
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 12:40:27 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Hi Roberto:

And let me add some comments also!
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.
To avoid submissions of non-members it just only takes that the mailing
list is setted up to be closed.  If you want to avoid a known spammer to
post (and because the list is closed, of course, it is a member of the
list) it just take to add him to a list in Sendmail that deny access to
such spammer.  But this is not a thing done by Elizabeth.  This has to be
done by the technical staff of AFNIC!!!  The Technical staff of AFNIC is
payed to dedicate part time job to DNSO (for me part time means four hours
a day).

> >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.
That's my initial statement in this discussion.  The GA-FULL is
unmoderated.  Then there's no excuse to close it!!!

> 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.
Agree with you.  But the issue here is that Elizabeth proposed to close te
GA-FULL (unmoderated) and not the GA (moderated).   And I don't
understand why she is monitoring an unmoderated list!

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:55:08 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re:  Austerity Measures

"babybows.com" wrote:

> Philip Sheppard writes:  "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?"
>
> I don't believe that the membership is arguing against the need to invoke
> certain austerity measures at a time when a lack of funding has prompted the
> NC to place in jeopardy the voting rights of our constituencies.

This can't really be taken seriously.  The amount of money ICANN throws
around would support many small countries.  ICANN has accounts receivable,
I hear, as to which the "debtors" have told ICANN to "stuff it." The budget
speaks of more millions, additional staff, etc. It is quite inconceivable that
"a lack of funding has prompted the NC to place in jeopardy the voting rights
of our consitutuencies."
Or if that is not correct, let's see the proof.

(If there were a dollar problem, the answer would not be the
elimination of lists but rather outsourcing for greater cost
effectiveness -- one good notion has come out of this fly bite.)

Bill Lovell

> I am sure
> that we will be willing to "do our part" and to consider cost-saving
> options, as we are equally sure that the NC is looking into their own list
> underutilization:
>
> NC-Outreach - 1 comment posted since 4 Aug 2000
> NC-Plan - 17 comments posted in total... last post on 21 Feb
> NC-Review - last comment posted 19 Feb
>
> The remaining lists, Council, Intake, and Budget could probably be
> consolidated into one single list, as the collective needs of only 19
> participants should not require more than a single list.
>
> If the NC will show us (leadership by example) that it can adopt its own
> cost-cutting measures, I am reasonably sure that the GA will be amenable to
> closing one or more of its new lists.
>
> --
> 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 10:59:07 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Joop's motions

Other SOs and the @Large are out of scope for the DNSO.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: William S. Lovell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 10:20 AM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions
> 
> 
> I see it as being pertinent, and Leah has the right answer.
> I also think it would be good to kick start the @large.
> Although strictly speaking the needs of "mere users" --
> not a pejorative term -- don't fall under the aegis of the
> DNSO, nevertheless the DNSO does have to concern
> itself with its relationships with other SOs, the @large,
> and on up.
> 
> L Gallegos 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.
> >
> > Leah
> >
> 
> --
> 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 14:19:03 -0400
From: "L Gallegos" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

From a rather cursory glance at the cost breakdown, a few glaring items 
are the cost of connectivity, computer, bandwidth...  One possible and 
viable choice would be to move to an area that has flat rate connectivity 
and another is that a pretty beefy computer can be purchased for a 
great deal less than USD $2,000.  It appears to me that the costs are 
greatly inflated.

Leah

On 15 May 2001, at 12:02, Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> "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-full" 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: Wed, 16 May 2001 04:25:43 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Joop's motions

Hi Roeland

> Other SOs and the @Large are out of scope for the DNSO.

Are you saying that the only policy issues within the scope of the DNSO are
those relating to "domain names"?  I'm not sure I understand you here?

What exactly is the "scope of the DNSO"?  Where is this defined?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
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 11:46:55 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Joop's motions

> From: Patrick Corliss [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2001 11:26 AM

> Hi Roeland
> 
> > Other SOs and the @Large are out of scope for the DNSO.
> 
> Are you saying that the only policy issues within the scope 
> of the DNSO are
> those relating to "domain names"?  I'm not sure I understand you here?

DNSO is Domain Name Supporting Organization. By "black letter" definition,
this does not include ASO/PSO activities or creation of meta-groups, like
other SOs. Also, ICANN has already stated that @Large is at BoD scope and
not in SO scope, since it is ICANN-wide and not restricted to a specific SO.

> What exactly is the "scope of the DNSO"?  Where is this defined?

ICANN bylaws and other ICANN documents. IMHO, we have enough on our plate
that we shouldn't be poaching from other plates.
- --
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 14:47:30 -0400
From: Jonathan Weinberg <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

At 12:40 PM 5/15/2001 +0000, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>Hi Roberto:
>[snip]
> > 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.
>Agree with you.  But the issue here is that Elizabeth proposed to close te
>GA-FULL (unmoderated) and not the GA (moderated).   And I don't
>understand why she is monitoring an unmoderated list!

         A note of clarification: Elisabeth has *not* proposed that either 
GA-FULL or GA be closed.  She has stated that closing GA-FULL "may 
destabilize the compromise achieved one year ago" and is 
undesirable.  <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc07/msg01796.html>.

Jon

Jonathan Weinberg
[email-masked]

- --
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 14:59:57 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Alternate Root Memo sent to Names Council

"Neuman, Jeff" wrote:
 
> Enclosed is a memorandum that we sent to the Names Council on the issue of
> Alternate Roots, specifically with regards to the Atlantic Root.

Please post it as text. Not everyone can read the proprietary Word format.
I can read it, but don't know enough about you to trust you to send a
virus-free file.
- --
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 14:17:46 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Austerity measures

Phillip:

That's the issue.  There's no such administrative time/costs with the
creation and maintenance of 1, 2, 100, 1000, 1million mailing lists if you
wish (if not, people as e-group wouldn't offer mailing lists for free)

As I expressed in my previous e-mail posted in the names council list,
all the steps taken by Elizabet are not really necesary be perfomed by her
or AFNIC.   I think that things can be really simplified.  I know
Elizabeth works in a voluntariy basis regarding mailing list.  But also a
technical staff in AFNIC is payed with the money of DNSO and they earns a
lot of money for a job that shouldn't cost that much (unless they want to
profit 10000% of the costs operations with DNSO money).   And now you
talk about "reduce" something that doesn't involve such administrative
costs that Elizabeth and AFNIC is claiming?

Or it is happening that someone is creating extra steps to then claiming
that the job is huge and so complicated and so expensive of perfom?

Best Regards
Vany

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" 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

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

Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 14:18:19 +0000 (UTC)
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Re: [council] List administration 

Elizabeth:

Perhaps, as stated in previous messages to the GA, the organization is the
problem you have.

On Tue, 15 May 2001, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

> Setting up lists on the DNSO is not only a short technical
> exercise.
For you, yes, it should be.

> 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
For now to the future, do it more simple:  Let the GA Chairs and monitors,
etc, arrange themselves on what they want, they send you rules ready to
post, the characteristics they want.  But, of course, those people have to
know what characteristics can be implemented with majordomo.  For this,
the only thing needed is to post in a webpage (a one time job) all the
features of majordomo, and then GA-Chairs and monitors has just to select
which features they want and sent it to you.

> and Secretariat, the timely technical implementation.
Also another issue of organization.  Set a procedure to be post in the
webpage (a one time job) that stablish simply that if today a request of
mailing list (with all pertaining texts) is sent to you, such a list will
be ready, next day...next hour, whatever...If there is a request of
several mailing list at the same time, then setup the time be ready.
Period...no discussion of this procedure and believe me, you will feel
with less load than before and will take for less less time to create a
mailing list.

The idea, is that you just have to make the technical setup which, again
is just five minutes.  But, what I want to know is who makes directly the
setup: you in person, or an AFNIC technical staff?  If it is the AFNIC
technical staff, then they are very well payed with DNSO funds, so they
shouldn't complain!!!

> 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
> problem
not everyday work for mailing list server

> s as well as bounces handling
not so frecuent.

> and providing answers to those
> who get lost and ask for help in unsubscribing or modifying
> addresses.
five minutes to send an e-mail or an URL.  By the way, in the Welcome
Message can be included instructions to unsuscribe and modifiying address.
This would decrease the amount of people that writes you.

> Depending on traffic (either induced by e-mail addresses
> belonging to lists, and which may have temporary or permanent
> problems, or par cross posting, or par spaming, par chain-mails,
> par some automated answers, etc.), the usual load at listadmin
> is more than two hundred delivery-reports two times a day.
and who perfom this task...you directly?  And do you read all of them?

> 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 agree with you.   I vote for GA-FULL not be closed, and I request to
you make your life easier in your voluntary job that I know you do it very
kindly, but this not means that if more mailing lists are needed, then now
you have to complicated your life.  Lets setup simply procedures
pre-technical job, and believe me that you will have more peace of mind
and time.

> I am asking the NC Colleagues to reconsider this.
Excellent!!!

Best Regards
Vany

- -- 
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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #463
************************