Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #526
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 11 2001            Volume 01 : Number 526

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:29:11 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:19 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

> The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major
> issues that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN . .
.
>
> It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish
> Terms-of Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background
> documents to rapidly educate those of us new to the process.

Members, GA Assembly

I think it should be clear by now that Danny issues pronouncements
without effective consultation with me or others.  I am sorry if this
appears divisive.

I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair.  From
memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined.  I do not
expect a significant turnaround.

Personally, I think the formation of sub-groups is the only effective way
that the GA can operate.  As you all know, I have tried without much success
to promote their use.  My view, as I've said publicly and privately, is that
there are too many sublists.  Many people have found the situation a little
confusing and I have tried to help where I can.

The current problem arose for three reasons.  One was that Danny created a
sublist [ga-review] without the support of the wg-review participants.  He
then disagreed with my request to use [ga-icann] for postings relating to
the restructuring of ICANN.  He sees that [ga-review] is more appropriate.
However, its "terms of reference" clearly show its purpose as the
restructuring of the DNSO and not ICANN as a whole,

The last reason was that somebody, perhaps the DNSO Secretariat, created
another mailing list for issues relating to .org.  We really do have to
consider the scope and viability of these lists.  I would therefore repeat
my earlier comments:

On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000, I wrote:
Subject: GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

> In other words, I don't care very much how the work is allocated between
> lists but, for each list, whether it is viable and, if so, what purpose it
> will serve.  Unless we address that issue the lists will not be very
> effective as a tool for policy formulation.
>
> Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from
> the list members in relation to how they see the system working most
> effectively.

Perhaps I should clarify that I am referring to the whole system including
working groups, terms of reference et al.  This has all been discussed in my
previous postings.  I will repost one that I made to [ga-rules] on 2 June.

My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!

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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 14:30:31 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.

From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <[email-masked]>
Cc: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.

The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly William
X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which I'd like
to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a genuine
interest in such a discussion.

As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is really
Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a constituency.
Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service Providers.
Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
dedicated people.

Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
privacy in relation to the European Community.

The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?

Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.

So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
(OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.

William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:

First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.

Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
sublist must be a member of the main GA list.

The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
some work done.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:02:18 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

Mr. Corliss,

Are you just oblivious to the fact that the rules do not allow for any of this?
You operate as though whatever you think is a good idea is dandy.  Well good
buddy look at the rules read them, they are in your native tongue.  There is no
provision for any of this, it is "illegal" pursuant to the rule which illegally
put you in your place.  Are you just oblivious?  Would you suggest one rule that
allows you to act in the manner you are advocating?  This is outrageous!!  No
one man is doing more to discredit our GA.  Danny please get a handle on this
person.  Do I have to appeal to the NC and BoD??  I just reread this post again
and am even more dismayed!  This is truly wonderland.  We discovered in the
WG-Review how destrcutive this type of behavoir is, it is killing any progress.

Sincerely bummed

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.
>
> From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management
>
> My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
> the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
> third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
> Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.
>
> The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly William
> X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which I'd like
> to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a genuine
> interest in such a discussion.
>
> As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is really
> Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a constituency.
> Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service Providers.
> Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
> dedicated people.
>
> Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
> list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
> decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
> reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
> privacy in relation to the European Community.
>
> The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
> the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?
>
> Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
> if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
> Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
> Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
> redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
> Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.
>
> So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
> other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
> do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
> (OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.
>
> William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
> there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:
>
> First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
> of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
> UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.
>
> Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
> that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
> everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
> sublist must be a member of the main GA list.
>
> The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
> some work done.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-rules" 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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:06:19 +1000
From: "Alternate Chair" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hi Marilyn

> For what it is worth, I am having trouble keeping the various list
straight
> too, and haven't found the time to subscribe in all I probably am
interested
> in.  A smaller number would be helpful to me.

You will remember that five were set up in the beginning.  Internal and
External were meant to be the main two lists.  Then there were three
"special interest" namely roots [ga-roots], registration systems [ga-sys]
and trademarks [ga-tm].

Danny then added [ga-review] to carry on the work of the WG-REVIEW working
group.  The latest list is [ga-org] which takes us to seven "sub-lists".

The other lists are [ga], [ga-full], [ga-abuse] and [ga-announce].  11
altogether.

> Organizing logically is a good idea; but keeping it small enough in
numbers,
> since most of us are on a lot of other lists too [:-)], would be helpful.
> Not a problem to reorder this, I would think, if enough of the members of
GA
> agree,.

I think there's a general consensus that the idea is over-played
particularly when we cannot seem to get much support for sub-list (or
working group) Chairs, Coordinators -- call them what you like.

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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:08:59 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, June 10, 2001, 9:30:31 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
> the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
> third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
> Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.

The constituencies do this.  The GA is not the coordinator of the
constituencies.  It is not the role of the GA at all.

> The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
> some work done.

I see no evidence to back up that statement.

The mailing list experiment has been a failure.  It is time to cut the
losses.

If anything the lists have caused more divisiveness.  What will happen
in those lists is that you will collect only the polar opposites.
Work will not get done, since those two polar opposites will never be
able to come to any kind of agreement.

- -- 
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:20:28 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

I HAVE FOUND ONLY THE AUTHORITY OF THE LIST MONITORS TO STOP THIS BEHAVIOR

Somebody stop this behavior it is astonishing.  This man advocates on a dayley
basis the violation of our rules and charter, worse he implements them.  This is
intolerable. If I directed you any further I would do you a disservice
http://www.dnso.icann.org/ please somebody find any authority for this man to
act in any official capacity outside what he is given in the absence of our
chair.  I beg our monitors to put a stop to this now!!

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:19 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
> Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up
>
> > The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> > longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major
> > issues that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN . .
> .
> >
> > It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish
> > Terms-of Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background
> > documents to rapidly educate those of us new to the process.
>
> Members, GA Assembly
>
> I think it should be clear by now that Danny issues pronouncements
> without effective consultation with me or others.  I am sorry if this
> appears divisive.
>
> I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
> onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair.  From
> memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined.  I do not
> expect a significant turnaround.
>
> Personally, I think the formation of sub-groups is the only effective way
> that the GA can operate.  As you all know, I have tried without much success
> to promote their use.  My view, as I've said publicly and privately, is that
> there are too many sublists.  Many people have found the situation a little
> confusing and I have tried to help where I can.
>
> The current problem arose for three reasons.  One was that Danny created a
> sublist [ga-review] without the support of the wg-review participants.  He
> then disagreed with my request to use [ga-icann] for postings relating to
> the restructuring of ICANN.  He sees that [ga-review] is more appropriate.
> However, its "terms of reference" clearly show its purpose as the
> restructuring of the DNSO and not ICANN as a whole,
>
> The last reason was that somebody, perhaps the DNSO Secretariat, created
> another mailing list for issues relating to .org.  We really do have to
> consider the scope and viability of these lists.  I would therefore repeat
> my earlier comments:
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000, I wrote:
> Subject: GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists
>
> > In other words, I don't care very much how the work is allocated between
> > lists but, for each list, whether it is viable and, if so, what purpose it
> > will serve.  Unless we address that issue the lists will not be very
> > effective as a tool for policy formulation.
> >
> > Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from
> > the list members in relation to how they see the system working most
> > effectively.
>
> Perhaps I should clarify that I am referring to the whole system including
> working groups, terms of reference et al.  This has all been discussed in my
> previous postings.  I will repost one that I made to [ga-rules] on 2 June.
>
> My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!
>

This is hypocrosy!!   How can he advocate the overthrow of our chair as the
Alternate-chair and claim bottoms-up??

>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:23:42 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Hello Patrick,

Sunday, June 10, 2001, 9:29:11 PM, Patrick Corliss wrote:
> Personally, I think the formation of sub-groups is the only effective way
> that the GA can operate.  As you all know, I have tried without much success
> to promote their use. My view, as I've said publicly and privately, is that
> there are too many sublists.  Many people have found the situation a little
> confusing and I have tried to help where I can.

I disagree with you here.  The only list that has gotten anything
resembling decent use is the roots list, and it has only attracted
those who are polar opposites who will never come to any kind of
compromise (it is my position that the entire subject is out of scope,
as a matter of fact).

Your view is, in my opinion, incorrect.
> The current problem arose for three reasons.  One was that Danny created a
> sublist [ga-review] without the support of the wg-review participants.

Much like both of you did without much support from the GA
participants for the concept of these sublists to start off with.

> The last reason was that somebody, perhaps the DNSO Secretariat, created
> another mailing list for issues relating to .org.  We really do have to
> consider the scope and viability of these lists.  I would therefore repeat
> my earlier comments:

The ga-org list is probably the only one of these lists that has any
relevance or purpose at all that should be attended to.

And in my opinion, the entire issue should be on the mail GA list.

The current leadership has tried to manage by dividing things up.
That has clearly not work.

Can you come up with a different approach or not?

You seem stuck on this course of action even if it means complete
alienation of the members who have already grown increasingly
frustrated with you (and I'm excluding myself from that group for
these purposes).  When this was pointed out privately, you indicated
you had no intent to deviate at all from your position regardless of
the opposition to it.

If you can't learn to let it go when it is clearly not something that
is working for the GA, or being adopted and used by the GA, then you
need to consider if you can be effective and of value to the GA.

- -- 
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:50:13 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Corliss,
>
> Are you just oblivious to the fact that the rules do not allow for any of this?
> You operate as though whatever you think is a good idea is dandy.  Well good
> buddy look at the rules read them, they are in your native tongue.  There is no
> provision for any of this, it is "illegal" pursuant to the rule which illegally
> put you in your place.  Are you just oblivious?  Would you suggest one rule that
> allows you to act in the manner you are advocating?  This is outrageous!!  No
> one man is doing more to discredit our GA.  Danny please get a handle on this
> person.  Do I have to appeal to the NC and BoD??  I just reread this post again
> and am even more dismayed!  This is truly wonderland.  We discovered in the
> WG-Review how destrcutive this type of behavoir is, it is killing any progress.
>
> Sincerely bummed

A more edifying explanation of why nothing gets done could hardly be found.
"Where is the leadership?" one person cries, and when someone tries to
provide such leadership, then the naysayers like the author of the above
rather hysterically dispute the authority of that person to have done that.
Attempts to provide "bottom up" self-organization require leadership, and
in that there is included the advancement of new ideas and their reasoned
analysis that hopefully would yield a more effective tool.   The failure by GA
so to do -- it was a "lack of consensus" that killed the earlier IC round -- has
nothing whatever to do with the NC, the DNSO, ICANN, or any other of the
"usual suspects" -- they can be guilty of enough on their own -- it has to do
with the childish and self-destructive mindset of the GA.

What is really happening here is that the author of the above diatribe finds real
competition in the post he attacks against that person's OWN notions, so in
order for that person's OWN ideas to win out, thereby giving fame and glory
to the author thereof, the advancement of other ideas must be attacked.  The
GA power elite is also dedicated to self-aggrandizement -- besides trying to
shut out new people so as to avoid dilution of its voice, it attacks others that
are in the group in an attempt to destroy those other persons' efforts.

Sheesh!

Bill Lovell

>
>
> Patrick Corliss wrote:
>
> > Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.
> >
> > From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> > To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
> > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> > Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management
> >
> > My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
> > the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
> > third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
> > Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.
> >
> > The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> > discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly William
> > X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which I'd like
> > to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a genuine
> > interest in such a discussion.
> >
> > As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is really
> > Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a constituency.
> > Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service Providers.
> > Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
> > dedicated people.
> >
> > Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
> > list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
> > decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
> > reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
> > privacy in relation to the European Community.
> >
> > The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
> > the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?
> >
> > Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
> > if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
> > Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
> > Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
> > redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
> > Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.
> >
> > So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
> > other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
> > do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
> > (OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.
> >
> > William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
> > there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:
> >
> > First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
> > of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
> > UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.
> >
> > Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
> > that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
> > everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
> > sublist must be a member of the main GA list.
> >
> > The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
> > some work done.
> >
> > Regards
> > Patrick Corliss
> >
>

- --
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 22:47:23 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-rules.html

A few months ago a very good man asked me if I would help to temporarily rid
the list of an individual so that he could help press an agenda without the
abusive distraction of that individual.  I read the above rules and said good
by to Mr. Burton and took the individual with me.  We were both ejected from
this list and Mr. Burton managed to get an extension of the WG-Review.  I
marshalled Mr. Walsh off this list with me to get an agenda which I felt bigger
than me through, I believe that today we can thank our decision in large part
for the Chair we now share and are beginning to pull behind.  I note that today
we see Mr. Williams offer to fill the shoes of Mr. Walsh in dedicating himself
to fullfilling our mission ( I must say I have grown most fond of Mr. Walsh and
like very much his contributions).  Because of our lack of rules governing such
matters, I at this time offer my service as a Marshall to help rid us of a
complication - Mr. Corliss - and his total abuse of the Alternate Chair
Status.  Until we develop our rules to a more civilized state we will have need
for marshall SoBs such as myself in order to allow the work of good folks like
Younger, Sotiris, Joanna, Jefsey, Jeff, Milton, etc. etc. to go forth.

However this time I make it public;  Mr. Younger, I remain your servant.

This post has no previous communication with any individual or official.

Alternate Chair wrote:

> Hi Marilyn
>
> > For what it is worth, I am having trouble keeping the various list
> straight
> > too, and haven't found the time to subscribe in all I probably am
> interested
> > in.  A smaller number would be helpful to me.
>
> You will remember that five were set up in the beginning.  Internal and
> External were meant to be the main two lists.  Then there were three
> "special interest" namely roots [ga-roots], registration systems [ga-sys]
> and trademarks [ga-tm].
>
> Danny then added [ga-review] to carry on the work of the WG-REVIEW working
> group.  The latest list is [ga-org] which takes us to seven "sub-lists".
>
> The other lists are [ga], [ga-full], [ga-abuse] and [ga-announce].  11
> altogether.
>
> > Organizing logically is a good idea; but keeping it small enough in
> numbers,
> > since most of us are on a lot of other lists too [:-)], would be helpful.
> > Not a problem to reorder this, I would think, if enough of the members of
> GA
> > agree,.
>
> I think there's a general consensus that the idea is over-played
> particularly when we cannot seem to get much support for sub-list (or
> working group) Chairs, Coordinators -- call them what you like.
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> 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, 11 Jun 2001 15:56:03 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hi Michael

> IMHO, I agree with Marilyn....we need to avoid being critical.  We do also
> need to look at the problem of multiple lists.  There are several
solutions.
>
> 1) reduce the number of lists

Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:

[ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote
[ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it
[ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.
[ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
debate.
[ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system
[ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.
[ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested
[ga-org]                   -- ditto --
[ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
systems

In other words, like an operating system the separate lists must represent
different levels of the hierarchy.  The "rules" list is needed for internal
housekeeping.

Special purpose lists are like subroutines -- you use them when you need
them.

> 2) make the lists web based and thus threaded

I'm not sure of your meaning here.  Archives can be threaded.

> 3) subscribers use outlook (express) and setup rules to move the messages
> from the their inbox to a folder for that list (this is what I do)

Me too but that's not the real problem.  There are two issues.  One is the
inherent problem of any classification system -- allocation (or "scope").
If ICANN issues a policy on Roots, does that go to [ga] or [ga-icann] or
[ga-roots] ?

The second problem is human error.  For example, one person may write a post
which provokes a new train of thought (or "thread") but this will inevitably
continue on the same list.  In fact people will need to be more disciplined
in the postings.

> 4) any number of other ways to solve this problem.

Basically the set of lists must be intuitive.  That's not the case at
present -- they are not even coherent let alone intuitive.

> FYI, I just re-subscribed to this list and others.  Two main reason I
> unsubscribe: 1) the amount of critical, non-productive email, and 2) the
> duplication/difficulty following the lists.

If you see the sublists as issue-driven, the work will be productive.  An
intuitive system will allow subscribers to follow what's going on without
difficulty.  For that you must have sub-list Chairs and terms of reference
(not just an agenda).

As Eric Dierker wrote:

> We have to stop running this like a chat room and start running
> it like a board room.

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: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 01:05:27 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Patrick and all assembly members,

 Ok Patrick, I agree with your conclusion, more bottom and less
top-down.  I agree with Danny that the GA-Review is a better venue
ML or WG list than the ga-ICANN ML.  Ergo, why don't you just
make a motion to the chair on this list and than request the
secretariat to put out a ballot to the GA members to decide.
Now wouldn't this be more Bottom-up, than Top-Down?

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:19 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
> Subject: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up
>
> > The new lists are admittedly an experiment.  Let's experiment a little
> > longer to see if we can achieve meaningful results.  One of the major
> > issues that we must confront is the inevitable restructuring of ICANN . .
> .
> >
> > It is my hope that this group can elect their own Chair, establish
> > Terms-of Reference, Timelines, and collect sufficient background
> > documents to rapidly educate those of us new to the process.
>
> Members, GA Assembly
>
> I think it should be clear by now that Danny issues pronouncements
> without effective consultation with me or others.  I am sorry if this
> appears divisive.
>
> I have asked almost all of the people nominated below, both privately and
> onlist, if they would volunteer their services as a sub-group Chair.  From
> memory, one person ignored the request and the others declined.  I do not
> expect a significant turnaround.
>
> Personally, I think the formation of sub-groups is the only effective way
> that the GA can operate.  As you all know, I have tried without much success
> to promote their use.  My view, as I've said publicly and privately, is that
> there are too many sublists.  Many people have found the situation a little
> confusing and I have tried to help where I can.
>
> The current problem arose for three reasons.  One was that Danny created a
> sublist [ga-review] without the support of the wg-review participants.  He
> then disagreed with my request to use [ga-icann] for postings relating to
> the restructuring of ICANN.  He sees that [ga-review] is more appropriate.
> However, its "terms of reference" clearly show its purpose as the
> restructuring of the DNSO and not ICANN as a whole,
>
> The last reason was that somebody, perhaps the DNSO Secretariat, created
> another mailing list for issues relating to .org.  We really do have to
> consider the scope and viability of these lists.  I would therefore repeat
> my earlier comments:
>
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:02:30 +1000, I wrote:
> Subject: GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists
>
> > In other words, I don't care very much how the work is allocated between
> > lists but, for each list, whether it is viable and, if so, what purpose it
> > will serve.  Unless we address that issue the lists will not be very
> > effective as a tool for policy formulation.
> >
> > Personally I think seven sublists is too many.  I would value input from
> > the list members in relation to how they see the system working most
> > effectively.
>
> Perhaps I should clarify that I am referring to the whole system including
> working groups, terms of reference et al.  This has all been discussed in my
> previous postings.  I will repost one that I made to [ga-rules] on 2 June.
>
> My view is that we need a bit less top-down and a bit more bottom-up !!
>
> 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

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 23:07:41 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

Mr. Lovell,

I find your complete avoidance of the rule of law here remarkable.  Have you ever even
bothered to read our rules.  You epitomize that which you criticize.
This post reminds me of the guy who goes fishing and laughs at all the others as he
holds up his 13 inch bass and says "can't you guys catch anything" then his buddy
looks at him and says "the throw back limit is 16 inches."  Well Mr. Lovell before you
go casting aspersions check the rules of engagement!

Bueno!

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> > Mr. Corliss,
> >
> > Are you just oblivious to the fact that the rules do not allow for any of this?
> > You operate as though whatever you think is a good idea is dandy.  Well good
> > buddy look at the rules read them, they are in your native tongue.  There is no
> > provision for any of this, it is "illegal" pursuant to the rule which illegally
> > put you in your place.  Are you just oblivious?  Would you suggest one rule that
> > allows you to act in the manner you are advocating?  This is outrageous!!  No
> > one man is doing more to discredit our GA.  Danny please get a handle on this
> > person.  Do I have to appeal to the NC and BoD??  I just reread this post again
> > and am even more dismayed!  This is truly wonderland.  We discovered in the
> > WG-Review how destrcutive this type of behavoir is, it is killing any progress.
> >
> > Sincerely bummed
>
> A more edifying explanation of why nothing gets done could hardly be found.
> "Where is the leadership?" one person cries, and when someone tries to
> provide such leadership, then the naysayers like the author of the above
> rather hysterically dispute the authority of that person to have done that.
> Attempts to provide "bottom up" self-organization require leadership, and
> in that there is included the advancement of new ideas and their reasoned
> analysis that hopefully would yield a more effective tool.   The failure by GA
> so to do -- it was a "lack of consensus" that killed the earlier IC round -- has
> nothing whatever to do with the NC, the DNSO, ICANN, or any other of the
> "usual suspects" -- they can be guilty of enough on their own -- it has to do
> with the childish and self-destructive mindset of the GA.
>
> What is really happening here is that the author of the above diatribe finds real
> competition in the post he attacks against that person's OWN notions, so in
> order for that person's OWN ideas to win out, thereby giving fame and glory
> to the author thereof, the advancement of other ideas must be attacked.  The
> GA power elite is also dedicated to self-aggrandizement -- besides trying to
> shut out new people so as to avoid dilution of its voice, it attacks others that
> are in the group in an attempt to destroy those other persons' efforts.
>
> Sheesh!
>
> Bill Lovell
>
> >
> >
> > Patrick Corliss wrote:
> >
> > > Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.
> > >
> > > From: Patrick Corliss <[email-masked]>
> > > To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <[email-masked]>
> > > Cc: [ga-rules] <[email-masked]>
> > > Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
> > > Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management
> > >
> > > My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
> > > the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
> > > third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
> > > Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.
> > >
> > > The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
> > > discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly William
> > > X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which I'd like
> > > to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a genuine
> > > interest in such a discussion.
> > >
> > > As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is really
> > > Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a constituency.
> > > Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service Providers.
> > > Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
> > > dedicated people.
> > >
> > > Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
> > > list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
> > > decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
> > > reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
> > > privacy in relation to the European Community.
> > >
> > > The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
> > > the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?
> > >
> > > Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
> > > if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
> > > Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
> > > Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
> > > redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
> > > Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.
> > >
> > > So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
> > > other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
> > > do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
> > > (OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.
> > >
> > > William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
> > > there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:
> > >
> > > First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
> > > of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
> > > UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.
> > >
> > > Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
> > > that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
> > > everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
> > > sublist must be a member of the main GA list.
> > >
> > > The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
> > > some work done.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Patrick Corliss
> > >
> >
>
> --
> Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
> to the reader may possibly be explained at:
> ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
> "WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #526
************************