Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #528
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Monday, June 11 2001            Volume 01 : Number 528

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 20:53:49 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Gendron, Michael (MIS)
|> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:27 PM
|> To: 'Patrick Corliss'; Gendron, Michael (MIS)
|> Cc: [ga]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists
|>
<snip>
|> Lists result in your inbox getting a lot of traffic that is not
|> necessarily threaded on the fly - yes, you can get threaded archives,
but that is
|> largely useless for participation in real-time.
<snip>

Just a quick note about threaded discussions from Mailing Lists.  This can
be achieved on the client side by using alternative software such as Free
Agent (tm).

There is no need for the actual server side to be forced into a threaded
display.  All users have their personal preferences for handling
communications.  It should be adjusted on the client side only.

Some like it threaded, others prefer to view by date and time and some
people like to view by author or subject.

The appropriate use of client software allows users to display the
communications in any way they desire.

Perhaps we should add software tutorials to the FAQ site when it is
developed?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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 07:43:56 -0400
From: "Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Correct me if I am wrong - but the threading software only works if no one
modifies the subject line...but once they do all bets are off.

Michael Gendron.. Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Dassa [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent:	Monday, June 11, 2001 6:54 AM
To:	[ga]
Subject:	RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: [email-masked] On Behalf Of Gendron, Michael (MIS)
|> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 8:27 PM
|> To: 'Patrick Corliss'; Gendron, Michael (MIS)
|> Cc: [ga]
|> Subject: RE: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists
|>
<snip>
|> Lists result in your inbox getting a lot of traffic that is not
|> necessarily threaded on the fly - yes, you can get threaded archives,
but that is
|> largely useless for participation in real-time.
<snip>

Just a quick note about threaded discussions from Mailing Lists.  This can
be achieved on the client side by using alternative software such as Free
Agent (tm).

There is no need for the actual server side to be forced into a threaded
display.  All users have their personal preferences for handling
communications.  It should be adjusted on the client side only.

Some like it threaded, others prefer to view by date and time and some
people like to view by author or subject.

The appropriate use of client software allows users to display the
communications in any way they desire.

Perhaps we should add software tutorials to the FAQ site when it is
developed?

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

- --
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, 11 Jun 2001 05:04:20 -0700
From: "William X. Walsh" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

Hello Dassa,

Monday, June 11, 2001, 3:53:49 AM, Dassa wrote:

> Perhaps we should add software tutorials to the FAQ site when it is
> developed?

And this isn't directed at your Darryl, but just at this entire
subject in general.

How much are we expected to coddle people?

Someone else objected to posters not supplying what would amount to a
complete glossary at the end of every post.  Others now want to make
participation more of a chore by forcing participants to use a web
based interface which is never as convenient as email.

I agree completely with you Darryl.  This is an issue that should be
dealt with by the user.  Most modern email clients support threading
in folders, and have useful filtering mechanisms that users can use to
filter mailing list emails into separate folders for each mailing list
they are on.

But is it our responsibility to teach them how to do it?

I've made my point before that we not only do ourselves, but those who
are new to the lists as well, a disservice if we constantly cater to
the lowest common denominator.  If we do that, we never advance.

It is much easier for one person to advance themself by asking
questions and seeking understanding (either by doing a search engine
lookup, or looking at the context of terms used repeatedly) than it
would be for us to constantly cater to them, which would never let the
discussion advance beyond the most basic levels.

This isn't elitist.  It's about taking responsibility for yourself.
If asked, I and others on this list have always been willing and able
to provide pointers and explanations, both on and off list, to those
who ask.  It is much better to do it that way, as needed, than to do
it in each and every message.

As I said, to comply with one user's recent complaint, we would
require a glossary attached to each of our messages.

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

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

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

Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:28:15 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

At 18:04 10/06/01 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 10, 2001 at 04:29:19PM -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
>[...]
> > It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
> > efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
> > for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
> > vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
> > been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
> > ExCom to direct list activities.
>
>That is, you want to subvert the Names Council.  The things you
>describe above are *precisely* what the NC is supposed to do.

Precisely? What about the "vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on 
the work-product that has been put forth"?

- --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: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 00:06:31 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

At 16:29 10/06/01 -0400, Danny Younger wrote:
>If it were announced tomorrow that the Names Council had created a number of
>formal working groups to deal with the topics of:
>
>1. UDRP (Working Group G)
>2. Dot ORG (Working Group H)
>3. Roots (Working Group I)
>4. DNSO Review (Working Group J)
>5. Privacy/WHOIS (Working Group K)
>6. At-Large (Working Group L)
>
>I seriously doubt that I would be hearing the argument that these working
>groups should not have their own lists, nor would I be hearing that it would
>be preferable if all the work were conducted on the main GA list, nor would
>I be hearing that there are too many working groups and that it is too
>confusing.
>
>Instead, I would probably note a large number of participants rushing to
>become part of the process.  As long as our "management" (the Names Council)
>organizes the working groups, appoints the Chairs or Liaisons, establishes
>the Terms-of-Reference, sets the Timeline, and drafts the Conclusions, then
>we are eagerly willing to participate...
>
>but if asked to self-organize, to take our own General Assembly lists and
>turn them into research committees, the equivalent of productive working
>groups, we fail.   We have a list devoted to ROOTS that has generated over
>700 comments so far, but do we have one single substantive document that has
>emerged?  Do we have any self-organized bottoms-up leadership?  Of course
>not.  Who in their right mind would willingly want to become a target for
>the relentless abuse that has characterized this Assembly?  It is no wonder
>that calls for volunteers to head up these committees have gone unheeded.
>
>We have become so comfortable with the notion that it is appropriate to be
>constantly attacking our leadership and challenging the decisions of our
>leadership, that we fail to recognize the deleterious consequences of our
>actions.
>
>Perhaps we are not capable of effective bottoms-up self-organization,
>perhaps like other groups of individuals that have struggled for years and
>still have not be able to raise funding for their respective membership
>efforts, we are destined to remain nothing more than another chat-room for
>domain name policy (one of many).  We can certainly continue in this fashion
>for years to come, knowing that through this process those that monitor
>these lists (Vint Cerf, Stuart Lynn, Karl Auerbach and others) can get a
>sense of the public mood.  Perhaps being a "barometer" is all we are capable
>of achieving.  But I have higher hopes for this Assembly.
>
>It is my opinion that what is needed is a structure by which list/committee
>efforts can be properly organized.  We have a need for Terms-of-Reference,
>for Timelines for preliminary reports and feedback, for Final Reports and a
>vote by the entirety of the General Assembly on the work-product that has
>been put forth; we have a need for the equivalent of a Task Force or an
>ExCom to direct list activities.
>
>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.  Notes from
>the last Board meeting make it eminently clear that the ALSC will be
>providing recommendations to the ICANN Board for an overall restructuring -
>their mission has gone far beyond a mere "clean-sheet" study of the
>At-Large:
>
>"Cohen: Recall deal in Cairo that ALSC would examine structure of ICANN as a
>whole. Recommend that we consider this in Montevideo. Look for legitimacy
>and reasonableness."
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/stockholm/archive/scribe-bod-060401.html
>
>We can contribute to this effort, much like the Boston Working Group and
>others contributed to the development of ICANN's formative structure.  Our
>Alternate Chair has argued that the venue for such discussion should be on
>our GA-ICANN list, and I will accept this recommendation.  What is needed
>now, in my opinion, is a small group to organize the effort for the benefit
>of all current and future participants.
>
>As many are reticent to volunteer, I will therefore appoint the following
>people to this Organizing Committee (they are of course at liberty to
>decline such an appointment):
>
>1. Sotiris Souteropolis
>2. William Walsh
>3. Jefsey Morphin
>4. Marilyn Cade
>5. Eric Dierker
>6. Leah Gallegos
>7. Joop Teenstra
>8. Bret Fausett
>9. Joanna Lane
>
>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.  After this group finishes its
>preliminary work, the rest of us may then better participate in a formally
>structured environment.   What I hope for ultimately is a consensus-based
>report to emerge at least as thorough as the recent interim NAIS
>presentation, and supported by documented outreach to all of our
>constituencies.  The future of the General Assembly, the At-Large, and ICANN
>may well be determined by the bottoms-up collective consensus view.  I ask
>you to accept this challenge, to create a new model for participation, and
>to lead us into a new future.

Danny and GA members,

Danny Younger is an elected Chair of this Assembly, not an appointee.
A posting like the above deserves support, respect for the majority that 
elected Danny and not inane criticism.  I am dismayed at some of the 
postings that I have seen from the last 24 hours.

I also take seriously the charter of the DNSO that tells me why I am a 
member of this Assembly:
"The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
     knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
     which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
     contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including
     work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
     document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
     committees and working groups."

I'll try to be of help, if such an Organizing committee can be formed and 
other appointees are willing to accept the task. But every proposal that 
comes out of such an Organizing Committee must be subjected to a  voting 
process for endorsement or amendments by the other members of the GA.

Even Karl Auerbach, who has always been consistent in advocating 
accountability, expressed a few days ago how he saw merit in the closed 
character of the BWG (Boston Working Group).
I too, have experienced the limits of totally open efforts in organizing 
the IDNO. ("bottom-up, the final illusion" I wrote, disillusioned)

We have elected our Chair in the hope of getting things done. We should now 
close ranks behind him to make it happen.

- --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, 11 Jun 2001 14:56:21 +0200
From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

At 15:56 11.06.2001 +1000, Patrick Corliss wrote:
>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

[email-masked] is separate from the GA. we don't need a ga-announce.

>[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

disagree - mail is the most open form of input.

>[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.

or different sectors of the interest space.

>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.

anyone can set up a mhonarc archive (or similar) to show how this can be 
done. secretariat can adopt "best of breed", once people have shown (with 
their feet) how they prefer to read the messages.

- --
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, 12 Jun 2001 00:11:27 +1000
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Novating the General Assembly

On Monday, June 11, 2001 9:45 PM (AEST), one member wrote:
> Is there anything we could do differently on this for now?

It seems to me that there are two or three approaches which can be used
assuming you agree with the hypothesis that the General Assembly is not
working as intended.  Probable reasons are as follows:

(1)    Lack of Resources, Dependency.  The GA is hamstrung by the NC control
over GA operations.  They (the NC) control the budget for travel to ICANN
conferences, secretariat, website, legal advice, translation etc.  The DNSO
Secretariat is answerable to the NC not the GA.  The NC closed down all the
working groups at whim.    More importantly the NC controls the mailing
lists and the website.

(2)    Poor outreach.  List numbers of less than 300 is tiny.  Of those very
few post regularly.  We need more members and better liaison with
constituencies.  Often constituencies such as the NCDNHC are doing exactly
what we are doing.  We need co-ordination of this effort.

(3)    Narrow Opinion.  Views expressed are often contradictory,
unconstructive or hostile.  New members are dissuaded from joining.  If they
join they are dissuaded from posting.

(4)    Onerous Requirements.  Being a member of this list requires
super-human dedication.  In fact, it is a full-time responsibility way
beyong the capacity of any single individual.

Using the words of another member of this forum (in a different context), we
need to "read every appendix in every registry contract, the NAIS 130-page
report, all of the independent studies, all of the 3328 comments to the
Review Working Group, all of the comments posted to every other prior
working group, and to every official list".  But that's not all.  We also
need to "listen to each Names Council teleconference, review Scribe Notes
from every single Board meeting going back over several years, monitor
constituency and other policy mailing lists, and every list of the GA".

Not is that all.  We also have to write.  We need to explain and promote our
views publicly and privately, respond to private emails and list postings,
research the archives, form opinions.  Go to conferences.  The list just
goes
on and on.  We may even have a family and work commitments.  Not to
mention that we need to eat, sleep and enjoy some leisure time !!
<end reasons>

OK.  So what to do?  Well, part of it is obvious:

(1)    Generate independent funding to reduce dependence on Names Council.
(2)    Develop more structured debate ("board room rather than chat room").
(3)    Set up working groups to tackle specific issues.  Provides better
focus.
(4)    Other possibilities. . . ?

I'd appreciate your comments.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss

Key
AEST - Australian Eastern Standard Time
DNSO - Domain Name Supporting Organisation
GA - General Assembly of the DNSO
ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
NAIS - The NGO and Academic ICANN Study
NC - Names Council of the DNSO
NCDNHC - Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency

- --
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 10:10:26 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Threading (was Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists)

Dassa wrote:

> Just a quick note about threaded discussions from Mailing Lists.  This can
> be achieved on the client side by using alternative software such as Free
> Agent (tm).

Yes. On these lists many people may also want killfile features.

> Perhaps we should add software tutorials to the FAQ site when it is
> developed?

Not our problem, but methinks it would be useful to have pointers to such
information. 

e.g. a fine resource site on mailing lists:
http://www.paml.org/

mailing list ettiquette FAQ:
http://www.gweep.bc.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html

( I do wish more people would read that and learn not to quote the whole
  message they're replying to, let alone quote it after the reply!)

dealing with any spammers that may appear
http://www.sputum.com/
http://www.rahul.net/falk/#howtos
- --
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 10:22:04 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

"William X. Walsh" wrote:

> > [ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > [ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
> > debate.
> 
> Disagree completely.  This list has served no purpose,and it shows no
> potential for developing into any purposeful list.
> 
> > [ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.
> 
> It's also unproductive.  It CANNOT be productive, because the only
> ones it is at all of interest to are the polar opposites.
> 
> It serves no useful purpose whatsoever.  And it won't. Kill it.
> 
> > [ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested
> 
> If there was interest in having a separate list for this issue, the
> list would be in use.
> 
> > [ga-org]                   -- ditto --
> 
> This is a VITAL and mainstream issue.  The issue MUST be before the
> entire GA for the best possible exposure and most input.
> 
> > [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
> > systems
> 
> But it isn't being used for that, is it?  Scrap it.

In other words, scrap all the spin-off lists.

I agree. They were a silly idea in the first place and the experiment
has failed to produce anything useful.

An exception might be the roots list. Having that brouhaha take place
elsewhere does improve this list. On the other hand, I think WXW is
right; it is unproductive and likely to remain so.
- --
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 10:24:15 -0400
From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Joop Teernstra wrote:

> Danny and GA members,
>
> Danny Younger is an elected Chair of this Assembly, not an appointee.
> A posting like the above deserves support, respect for the majority that
> elected Danny and not inane criticism.  I am dismayed at some of the
> postings that I have seen from the last 24 hours.
>
> I also take seriously the charter of the DNSO that tells me why I am a
> member of this Assembly:
> "The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
>      knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
>      which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
>      contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including
>      work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
>      document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
>      committees and working groups."
>
> I'll try to be of help, if such an Organizing committee can be formed and
> other appointees are willing to accept the task. But every proposal that
> comes out of such an Organizing Committee must be subjected to a  voting
> process for endorsement or amendments by the other members of the GA.
>
> Even Karl Auerbach, who has always been consistent in advocating
> accountability, expressed a few days ago how he saw merit in the closed
> character of the BWG (Boston Working Group).
> I too, have experienced the limits of totally open efforts in organizing
> the IDNO. ("bottom-up, the final illusion" I wrote, disillusioned)
>
> We have elected our Chair in the hope of getting things done. We should now
> close ranks behind him to make it happen.

All,

I believe Joop is making an excellent point here.  I think it's time we stood
behind the Chair and actively bolstered his position.  We can do no less,
especially considering his steadfast and impressive showing in Stockholm.  I
readily accept the appointment, and hope the rest will also.  I urge William
Walsh to reconsider his position and to join myself and any of the others
interested in making meaningful contributions.  I think the time has come to put
aside the invective and get some work done.

Sincerely,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 12:00:59 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Novating the General Assembly

a quick response  here  to your  item  #1 patrick....

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Patrick Corliss" <[email-masked]>
To: "[ga]" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 10:11 AM
Subject: [ga] Novating the General Assembly

> (1)    Lack of Resources, Dependency.  The GA is hamstrung by the NC
control
> over GA operations.  They (the NC) control the budget for travel to ICANN
> conferences, secretariat, website, legal advice, translation etc.  The
DNSO
> Secretariat is answerable to the NC not the GA.  The NC closed down all
the
> working groups at whim.    More importantly the NC controls the mailing
> lists and the website.

the names council does not CONTROL the travel budgets for the ga staff.  we
have no control over the ga members budget for travel and, as you are quite
aware of, there never has been a DNSO "travel budget" for  any names council
or ga person

as to mailing list "control" the ga lists were established by the ga, not
the NC, are monitored and mediated by ga people (and always have been) and
located on the dnso maillist server and subsidised under the names council
budget

would you prefer that the ga maillists be placed on separate servers, if so,
whose, and how do propose  to fund this seperate service ?

as to the website, no one has stopped any of the ga members from putting up
their own site Patrick, again there is a matter of funding here.. there are
certain "economies of scale" which can be achieved by consolidation of all
sites with a specific service.

you statement above is an unfortunate example of the  "narrow  opinion" &
"views" you refer to in paragraph #3 below

ken stubbs

>
> (2)    Poor outreach.  List numbers of less than 300 is tiny.  Of those
very
> few post regularly.  We need more members and better liaison with
> constituencies.  Often constituencies such as the NCDNHC are doing exactly
> what we are doing.  We need co-ordination of this effort.
>
> (3)    Narrow Opinion.  Views expressed are often contradictory,
> unconstructive or hostile.  New members are dissuaded from joining.  If
they
> join they are dissuaded from posting.
>
> (4)    Onerous Requirements.  Being a member of this list requires
> super-human dedication.  In fact, it is a full-time responsibility way
> beyong the capacity of any single individual.
>
> Using the words of another member of this forum (in a different context),
we
> need to "read every appendix in every registry contract, the NAIS 130-page
> report, all of the independent studies, all of the 3328 comments to the
> Review Working Group, all of the comments posted to every other prior
> working group, and to every official list".  But that's not all.  We also
> need to "listen to each Names Council teleconference, review Scribe Notes
> from every single Board meeting going back over several years, monitor
> constituency and other policy mailing lists, and every list of the GA".
>
> Not is that all.  We also have to write.  We need to explain and promote
our
> views publicly and privately, respond to private emails and list postings,
> research the archives, form opinions.  Go to conferences.  The list just
> goes
> on and on.  We may even have a family and work commitments.  Not to
> mention that we need to eat, sleep and enjoy some leisure time !!
> <end reasons>
>
> OK.  So what to do?  Well, part of it is obvious:
>
> (1)    Generate independent funding to reduce dependence on Names Council.
> (2)    Develop more structured debate ("board room rather than chat
room").
> (3)    Set up working groups to tackle specific issues.  Provides better
> focus.
> (4)    Other possibilities. . . ?
>
> I'd appreciate your comments.
>
> Best regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> Key
> AEST - Australian Eastern Standard Time
> DNSO - Domain Name Supporting Organisation
> GA - General Assembly of the DNSO
> ICANN - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
> NAIS - The NGO and Academic ICANN Study
> NC - Names Council of the DNSO
> NCDNHC - Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
>
>
> --
> 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, 11 Jun 2001 13:13:17 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Net Sol and our gTLD registry constituency

So someone suggested I ask them for a copy of the Net Sol domain Policy
list. So I went to the website and sent my request. So this response is
pretty funny. So I guess all that criteria for constituencies is really
kind of insincere. so so so so.

Sincerely,

   ----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email-masked]>

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
451 <[email-masked]>... gTLDRegistries.org: Name server
timeout
Message could not be delivered for 5 days
Message will be deleted from queue

Reporting-MTA: dns; mailhost.nsiregistry.com
Arrival-Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 15:45:47 -0400 (EDT)

Final-Recipient: RFC822; <[email-masked]>
Action: failed
Status: 4.4.7
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 15:53:49 -0400 (EDT)

 Subject:
        Net Sol domain Policy list Archives
   Date:
        Wed, 06 Jun 2001 12:49:51 -0700
   From:
        Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
     To:
        [email-masked]

May I please have a copy of all of the archives from the now defunct Net

Sol domain policy list?

Thank you for your time.

Eric Dierker

- --
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 13:35:41 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Well I tried hard to find a reason to attack this whole idea and therefor avoid
doing any serious work, then I put it up that it may create some conflicts with
projects I am working on, then I told our CEO it would take way to much time, after
being shot down on all of these I guess I have no more excuses.  Well if Danny
knowing full well what a pain I am wants my involvement he can have it. At your
service Mr. Chair.

Sincerely,
Eric

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

>
>
> I believe Joop is making an excellent point here.  I think it's time we stood
> behind the Chair and actively bolstered his position.  We can do no less,
> especially considering his steadfast and impressive showing in Stockholm.  I
> readily accept the appointment, and hope the rest will also.  I urge William
> Walsh to reconsider his position and to join myself and any of the others
> interested in making meaningful contributions.  I think the time has come to put
> aside the invective and get some work done.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> -

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

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

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001 17:03:19 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Blending Top-down and Bottoms-up

Sotiris and all assembly members,

  I voted for Danny.  I support him whenever and wherever I can
realistically do so.  Where I cannot as spokesman for our organization,
I simply cannot.  I admire your desire to move forward with real work
to be done and much needed in the DNSO GA, however it is
also not wise to blindly go forward with every proposal that Danny
suggests, or for that matter any one else proposes.  Therefore
I cannot support and do not support, Appointing Joop as to the
Task force as suggested for the GA.  Rather an election should
be held, and even Joop agrees, to determine whom this person
or representative should be.

Sotiris Sotiropoulos wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
>
> > Danny and GA members,
> >
> > Danny Younger is an elected Chair of this Assembly, not an appointee.
> > A posting like the above deserves support, respect for the majority that
> > elected Danny and not inane criticism.  I am dismayed at some of the
> > postings that I have seen from the last 24 hours.
> >
> > I also take seriously the charter of the DNSO that tells me why I am a
> > member of this Assembly:
> > "The participants in the GA should be individuals who have a
> >      knowledge of and an interest in issues pertaining to the areas for
> >      which the DNSO has primary responsibility, and who are willing to
> >      contribute time, effort and expertise to the work of the DNSO, including
> >      work item proposal and development, discussion of work items, draft
> >      document preparation, and participation in research and drafting
> >      committees and working groups."
> >
> > I'll try to be of help, if such an Organizing committee can be formed and
> > other appointees are willing to accept the task. But every proposal that
> > comes out of such an Organizing Committee must be subjected to a  voting
> > process for endorsement or amendments by the other members of the GA.
> >
> > Even Karl Auerbach, who has always been consistent in advocating
> > accountability, expressed a few days ago how he saw merit in the closed
> > character of the BWG (Boston Working Group).
> > I too, have experienced the limits of totally open efforts in organizing
> > the IDNO. ("bottom-up, the final illusion" I wrote, disillusioned)
> >
> > We have elected our Chair in the hope of getting things done. We should now
> > close ranks behind him to make it happen.
>
> All,
>
> I believe Joop is making an excellent point here.  I think it's time we stood
> behind the Chair and actively bolstered his position.  We can do no less,
> especially considering his steadfast and impressive showing in Stockholm.  I
> readily accept the appointment, and hope the rest will also.  I urge William
> Walsh to reconsider his position and to join myself and any of the others
> interested in making meaningful contributions.  I think the time has come to put
> aside the invective and get some work done.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #528
************************