Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #498
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 29 2001            Volume 01 : Number 498

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

Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 22:50:56 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] NCtelecon 9 May 2001, minutes

- --=====================_100982803==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

Doom, doom, doom, DOOM.

On 20:58 28/05/01, DNSO Secretariat said:
>     Ph. Sheppard expressed some concern as to process leading to the newly
>      created GA mailing lists, set up on GA Chair request. The lists were
>      established before the NC had a chance to approve them. He felt NC
>      approval was needed as there is a cost implication (set up represented
>      20 hours of DNSO secretariat work and there is around 2 hours for daily
>      maintenance). He proposed one practical cost saving would be
>      closure on the under-used GA open list which duplicates the
>      normal GA list. NC members agreed and P.Sheppard will talk with
>      the GA chair on this.

Well done!   BTW no vote ...

>     E. Roberts agreed with the concern and pointed out that no information
>      was given prior to a setting up of the lists as to their chair or
>      moderator. She asked for the process to be clarified.

Dear Erica. May be she might give a local call to Patrick?

Deep thanks to everyone involved ....

- --=====================_100982803==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

<html>
Doom, doom, doom, DOOM.<br>
<br>
On 20:58 28/05/01, DNSO Secretariat said:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  Ph. Sheppard
expressed some concern as to process leading to the newly<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; created GA mailing lists, set up on GA Chair
request. The lists were<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; established before the NC had a chance to
approve them. He felt NC<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; approval was needed as there is a cost
implication (set up represented<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 20 hours of DNSO secretariat work and there is
around 2 hours for daily<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; maintenance).<b> He proposed one practical cost
saving would be <br>
</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>closure on the under-used GA open list
which duplicates the <br>
</b>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <b>normal GA list.</b> NC members agreed and
P.Sheppard will talk with <br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; the GA chair on this.</blockquote><br>
Well done!&nbsp;&nbsp; BTW no vote ... <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;  E. Roberts
agreed with the concern and pointed out that no information<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; was given prior to a setting up of the lists as
to their chair or<br>
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; moderator. She asked for the process to be
clarified.</blockquote><br>
Dear Erica. May be she might give a local call to Patrick?&nbsp; <br>
<br>
Deep thanks to everyone involved .... <br>
<br>
</html>

- --=====================_100982803==_.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: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:42:20 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-FULL disfunctionment

Jefsey,

>
>On 13:56 27/05/01, Patrick Corliss said:
>>With 35 posts allowed per person per day, and very many outside lists
>>available for cross-posting, I would appreciate hearing from any person 
>>who
>>is in favour of allowing unrestrained cross-posting across any or all 
>>lists.
>
>I do.
>
>This is why I subscribed to GA-FULL. To be sure that cross posting does not
>result into duplicates and that I get everything.

I'm not sure I understand.
You complain about duplicates, direct effect of cross-posting, yet you are 
in favour of cross-posting. Personally, I see a contradiction.

The subscription to GA-full is a completely different thing, as it is 
related to the general purpose GA list, not the special interest groups 
lists, I don't see how they are related.

>
>BTW I must report that the GA-FULL does not work properly, I do not receive
>all the mails I expect. On he GA lists there are two filterings in action:
>- the self imposed filtering resulting from posting on a sub-GA list.
>- the sub-list filtered posts.
>I fully understand that those who are here for fun may be hurt by some
>informations, remarks etc...  and that they need such a protection scheme.
>This is a convenience for them.

Incidentally, the specialised lists are not "sub-lists", are a different 
thing.
(Hint: people may well subscribe to a specific list, because he/she is 
particularly interested in the topic discussed, and may not subscribe to the 
GA, because he/she is not interested in the rest of the traffic. For 
instance, I am subscribed to some IETF specialised lists, but not to the 
general-purpose IETF list)

We definitively disagree on the behaviour of who is here "for fun" (vs. who 
is here "for business").
Who is here "for fun" is not "hurt" at all about the excess posting, the 
cross-posting, the out-of-topic and/or irrelevant posting, the abusive 
language, and all the alike. On the contrary, this is exactly "the fun".
It is rather the people that, being here "for business" need to separate the 
signal from the noise.

>
>It happens that those who are here for their business are actually
>interested in these elements and that for them getting everything is not
>only a convenience but a necessity. By nature GA-FULL is to broadcast every
>post on any GA list as if none of these filterings existed. Or this is not
>a GA-FULL.

The purpose of the GA-FULL has been defined more than a year ago, and has 
not changed: it logs all mail addressed to [email-masked] without any 
filtering. And the mail to any other mailing list is *not* falling under 
this definition.

>
>I would thank Elisabeth to see why the GA-FULL currently does not include
>sub-list mails and - according to Patrick - there is no way to receive
>filtered mails on a sub-list. And please to correct this bug.
>

As explained above, what you call "sub-lists" are not a subset of the GA 
list, but separate lists. And they are logged separately, rightfully so.

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: Mon, 28 May 2001 14:44:39 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Follow-up on Marilyn, Lary and Bill

Thank you for pointing out my vagueness. In your correction of placing
blame where
it belongs you are of course correct. What If any blame I was placing
upon the
technical folk was for not killing the political and lawyer folk before
they got so
entrenched. OTOH how were you to know that they would lie cheat and
steal your hard
work from you.

I guess what I am really doing quite awkardly is asking for your
patience, as us
newbie political and lawyer types come in and fight the dirty war to get
the
internet back to where you all wanted it in the first place, in the
hands of and for
the good of the people. After the recent history I can understand your
disdain for
us non-technical types, but I promise you we are not all bad (often
misguided
perhaps).

Sincerely,

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > Dear Mr. Morfin,
> >
> > It is long wandering posts like this one that are so helpful. ...
>
> Oddly enough, that is sometimes true. However, it is also the case that some of
> the long rambles are among the most useless, incomprehensible and irrelevant
> posts here.
>
> > The digital divide, is absolutely nothing new, it is those with power through
> > knowledge wielding it against those without.
>
> This sounds like you're blaming the technical folk -- DNS administrators and the
> IETF protocol designers, the people with the knowledge here -- for the various
> brokenesses of ICANN. That is not justified.
>
> You're right; there's a divide and power is being wielded in ways that are
> detrimental to the net and to many users.
>
> But blame various politicians, WIPO, the lawyers, the greed associated with
> the "dot com goldrush" (mad expansion, trampling on the natives, claim jumpers,
> ...), various people and companies whose only goal in life seems to be to cash
> in, ...
>
> It's not the techies, or at the very least not primarily them.
> --
> 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: Mon, 28 May 2001 21:47:49 -0000
From: "Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

Roeland,

>....... What it also does is demonstrate, for the ICANN, that
>general transparency isn't ready for prime-time. It is the strongest
>argument against the @LArge that the ICANN has. A demonstration of chaos, 
>if
>you will.

Any suggestion to change this?

>
>Going into the Stockholm meeting, those attending might want to reflect on
>this.

Thanks
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: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:31:17 -0400
From: "Danny Younger" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Observations...

Lessons to be learned from the voting process:

As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot questions
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put, a
full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
suggestions as to how we may make improvements.

I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
last month did not choose to vote:
Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker, Edelman,
Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
Stubbs, Svensson.

You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
to participate in a vote.

You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".

If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.  I am
open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
to improve our Assembly.

- --
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, 29 May 2001 11:59:51 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA Credibility.

At 21:47 28/05/2001 +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Roeland,
>
>>....... What it also does is demonstrate, for the ICANN, that
>>general transparency isn't ready for prime-time. It is the strongest
>>argument against the @LArge that the ICANN has. A demonstration of chaos, if
>>you will.
>
>
>Any suggestion to change this?

Yes. I have made the (bold?) suggestion in the WG that membership of the GA 
(and especially posting rights on the list) should be endorsed by a minimum 
of 5 other individual GA members.
(number of 5 is of course open to debate)
This would make each poster to the GA list a sort of "representative" with 
accompanying rights and obligations.

- --Joop--
Founder of the Cyberspace Association.
Former bootstrap of the IDNO (www.idno.org)
Developer of    The Polling Booth
www.democracy.org.nz

- --
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, 28 May 2001 20:03:12 -0400
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Observations...

Danny, thank you for doing that initial analysis.

Perhaps I can help by explaining why I didn't vote.  I am not in full
agreement with the resolutions as drafted. But not opposed to the concepts.

We are working hard, but we don't yet have a good mechanism to get
resolutions refined... I'm not being critical, merely trying to explain that
why I didn't vote... on these particular resolutions, as they were drafted. 

I didn't seek to modify them because I didn't see that there was broad
consensus to my points of view.  :-0 

I think that Danny's suggestions to us, reminds all of us to examine what,
why, and how we might better formulate resolutions... and is useful.  In the
meantime, I take the vote and the resolutions on face value...which is that
these issues remain of concern to several of the active participants in the
GA.  

That may not satisfactorily capture the full perspective, but I hope it can
make a contribution. 

- -----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 6:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Observations...

Lessons to be learned from the voting process:

As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot questions
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put, a
full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
suggestions as to how we may make improvements.

I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
last month did not choose to vote:
Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker, Edelman,
Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
Stubbs, Svensson.

You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
to participate in a vote.

You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".

If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.  I am
open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
to improve our Assembly.

- --
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: Mon, 28 May 2001 17:22:58 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] Observations...

Frankly, I missed the vote slot. I've been busy.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 3:31 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [ga] Observations...
> 
> 
> Lessons to be learned from the voting process:
> 
> As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA 
> ballot questions
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note 
> that perhaps
> only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the 
> GA list in the
> last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   
> Simply put, a
> full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our 
> GA list.  You
> may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and 
> forward some
> suggestions as to how we may make improvements.
> 
> I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who 
> posted in the
> last month did not choose to vote:
> Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, 
> Dierker, Edelman,
> Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, 
> Hernand, Kelly,
> Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
> Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
> Stubbs, Svensson.
> 
> You may also want to think about why regular contributors 
> have decided not
> to participate in a vote.
> 
> You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
> registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at 
> this "registry"
> list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".
> 
> If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that 
> is reasonably
> functional and representative, we may need to re-think our 
> approach.  I am
> open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on 
> how we can work
> to improve our Assembly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> 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: Mon, 28 May 2001 19:13:40 -0500
From: Bruce James <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Observations...

And in response:

Perhaps I can help by explaining why I *did* vote.  I am not in full
agreement with the resolutions as drafted. But not opposed to the concepts.

/Bruce
:-)

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <[email-masked]>
To: "'Danny Younger'" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: May 28, 2001 19:03
Subject: RE: [ga] Observations...

Danny, thank you for doing that initial analysis.

Perhaps I can help by explaining why I didn't vote.  I am not in full
agreement with the resolutions as drafted. But not opposed to the concepts.

We are working hard, but we don't yet have a good mechanism to get
resolutions refined... I'm not being critical, merely trying to explain that
why I didn't vote... on these particular resolutions, as they were drafted.

I didn't seek to modify them because I didn't see that there was broad
consensus to my points of view.  :-0

I think that Danny's suggestions to us, reminds all of us to examine what,
why, and how we might better formulate resolutions... and is useful.  In the
meantime, I take the vote and the resolutions on face value...which is that
these issues remain of concern to several of the active participants in the
GA.

That may not satisfactorily capture the full perspective, but I hope it can
make a contribution.

- -----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2001 6:31 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Observations...

Lessons to be learned from the voting process:

As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot questions
http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put, a
full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
suggestions as to how we may make improvements.

I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
last month did not choose to vote:
Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker, Edelman,
Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
Stubbs, Svensson.

You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
to participate in a vote.

You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".

If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.  I am
open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
to improve our Assembly.

- --
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: Tue, 29 May 2001 10:45:06 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Observations...

Hi Danny

Thank you for your observations.  I note that you have named a number of
people as in the following sentence:

> I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
> last month did not choose to vote:

I realise that this is all a matter of public record but I do think it would
be better if we all avoided naming people whenever there is any suggestion
of disapproval.  The very fact of naming, without more, can cause severe
emotional disturbances amongst members.

In fact, there should be no disapproval.  The nominated people did all cast
a perfectly valid vote.  They all voted to abstain.  Where we could have a
problem is if they MEANT to vote but didn't receive their ballot paper or
something of that kind.

There could also be a fault with the votiing process in that it did not
allow for the possibility of an abstention.  I really don't think all such
questions are simply YES or NO in form.

I know it is a great deal of work but I suggest that you conduct a private
survey of those who didn't vote to see if they want to expolain why not.
They you could publish the results in a summary report without naming
people.  I understand that is standard methodology.

Of course, there's nothing to say that they will repond to your survey,
either.

BTW I am responding to you on the main GA list.  Any future postings of this
type or on this subject should go to GA-RULES as that list is for internal
processes.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Danny Younger <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 8:31 AM
Subject: [ga] Observations...

> Lessons to be learned from the voting process:
>
> As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot
questions
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
> only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
> last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put,
a
> full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
> may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
> suggestions as to how we may make improvements.
>
> I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
> last month did not choose to vote:
> Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker,
Edelman,
> Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
> Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
> Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
> Stubbs, Svensson.
>
> You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
> to participate in a vote.
>
> You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
> registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
> list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".
>
> If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
> functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.  I am
> open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
> to improve our Assembly.

- --
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, 28 May 2001 21:05:23 -0400
From: Joanna Lane <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Observations...

Danny,
There was no option to Abstain on the ballot. Regular contributors may have
decided not to participate for that reason and no way of knowing unless
incorporated in future ballots.

Regards,
Joanna

on 5/28/01 6:31 PM, Danny Younger at [email-masked] wrote:

> I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
> last month did not choose to vote:
> Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker, Edelman,
> Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
> Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
> Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
> Stubbs, Svensson.
> 
> You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
> to participate in a vote.
> 

- --
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, 28 May 2001 21:22:01 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Observations...

Actually, I voted onlist in favour of the first resolution (i.e. recognition of
an IC in principle by the BoD), and I simply missed the call for the vote on the
second resolution.  In any case,  I did not vote officially as I did not receive
a ballot, and NOT because I was not interested in voting.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

Danny Younger wrote:

> Lessons to be learned from the voting process:
>
> As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot questions
> http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
> only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
> last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put, a
> full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
> may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
> suggestions as to how we may make improvements.
>
> I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
> last month did not choose to vote:
> Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker, Edelman,
> Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
> Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
> Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
> Stubbs, Svensson.
>
> You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
> to participate in a vote.
>
> You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
> registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
> list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".
>
> If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
> functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.  I am
> open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
> to improve our Assembly.
>
> --
> 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: Mon, 28 May 2001 18:47:02 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Observations...

Hello Patrick,

Monday, May 28, 2001, 5:45:06 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Hi Danny

> Thank you for your observations.  I note that you have named a number of
> people as in the following sentence:

>> I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
>> last month did not choose to vote:

> I realise that this is all a matter of public record but I do think it would
> be better if we all avoided naming people whenever there is any suggestion
> of disapproval.  The very fact of naming, without more, can cause severe
> emotional disturbances amongst members.

Oh please. It was all public and documented on the web page.  There is
no privacy issue here.

> In fact, there should be no disapproval.  The nominated people did all cast
> a perfectly valid vote.  They all voted to abstain.  Where we could have a
> problem is if they MEANT to vote but didn't receive their ballot paper or
> something of that kind.

They did not abstain.  There is a vast difference.

> BTW I am responding to you on the main GA list.  Any future postings of this
> type or on this subject should go to GA-RULES as that list is for internal
> processes.

No, it belongs on the main GA list, and that's were my response goes.

Thankfully, you don't dictate that, or have that kind of control.

- -- 
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, 28 May 2001 19:06:40 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Observations...

Go get dismayed Danny,

Do you doubt for a second that I support these two propositions, did I not have
behind the scene direct armtwisting involvement in achieving their resolve?  I am
not a head to be counted and I work for thousands of voices to be heard.  I chose
not to vote, so as to include my voice at a strategic time when you are in
Stockholm.

Do not worry the effect will be the same, only anticipated.  But please do not reach
down and bash us.  You have our support may we have yours?

Yes, this is public to allow you to reassure us of your intentions and resolve.

Best to you, your wife and beautiful children on this wonderful Holiday of memories.

Memorial day - What will they call it; Cyber day, Virtual day, Freedom of Access
day, when we free ourselves of the bonds that bind us: When Mr. Macdonald may have
his MacDonalds web site for him and all his great grand kids, Wow a virtual picnic
including potatoe salad, and no burgers.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Actually, I voted onlist in favour of the first resolution (i.e. recognition of
> an IC in principle by the BoD), and I simply missed the call for the vote on the
> second resolution.  In any case,  I did not vote officially as I did not receive
> a ballot, and NOT because I was not interested in voting.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> Danny Younger wrote:
>
> > Lessons to be learned from the voting process:
> >
> > As I review the names of those who actually voted on the GA ballot questions
> > http://www.dnso.org/secretariat/b05fullrecord.html , I note that perhaps
> > only 18 out of the 91 voters had posted any comments to the GA list in the
> > last month.  Frankly, most of the voters are unknown to me.   Simply put, a
> > full 80% of those voting do not actively participate on our GA list.  You
> > may want to think about why this happens to be the case, and forward some
> > suggestions as to how we may make improvements.
> >
> > I was also quite dismayed to note that many our members who posted in the
> > last month did not choose to vote:
> > Appleby, Cade, Cochetti, Conant, Crispin, Crocker, Dassa, Dierker, Edelman,
> > Fausett, Froomkin, Gaetano, Gardner, Greenwell, Harris, Hernand, Kelly,
> > Kelsey, Ladi, Langdell, Levin, Marsh, Meyer, Mueller, Narra, Neuman,
> > Portneuve, Roberts, Schneiders, Semich, Sheppard, Sotiropoulos, Stoen,
> > Stubbs, Svensson.
> >
> > You may also want to think about why regular contributors have decided not
> > to participate in a vote.
> >
> > You may wish to also note that over 70% of the members on our voting
> > registry decided not to vote.  Perhaps we need to look at this "registry"
> > list, and ask ourselves if we need a mechanism to keep it "current".
> >
> > If we are going to transform this Assembly into a body that is reasonably
> > functional and representative, we may need to re-think our approach.  I am
> > open to further suggestions, observations, and comments on how we can work
> > to improve our Assembly.
> >
> > --
> > 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: Tue, 29 May 2001 12:14:22 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Observations...

Hi William

I think William X. Walsh is a kind and gentle person.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

On Mon, 28 May 2001 18:47:02 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:

> Oh please. It was all public and documented on the web page.  There is
> no privacy issue here.
> 
> They did not abstain.  There is a vast difference.
> 
> No, it belongs on the main GA list, and that's were my response goes.
> 
> Thankfully, you don't dictate that, or have that kind of control.
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh

- --
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 #498
************************