Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #703
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST           Sunday, August 26 2001           Volume 01 : Number 703

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

Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:47:53 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

I'm afraid my participation levels are down at the moment and may get
worse due to actually having a real life as opposed to how some people
may see my activities :).  However, I have been giving the subject of
funding some thought.

Funding for the GA and DNSO or any of the ICANN bodies is not a simple
matter.  I see a lot of discussion on how it is pay to play and about
the inequality of the system.  I suggest a complete turn around with
our thinking.  Instead of discussing ICANN or external sources funding
attendance at F2F meetings and so forth, we should look at ways to
minimise financial commitment by participants and limiting some of the
advantages those with good financial backing may have.

It is commonly understood that those with financial advantages are
able to participate at the F2F meetings and exert more influence by
having a large presence at all such meetings.  They are also able to
engage in more direct communications with the ICANN Board by way of
having more direct contact.

Perhaps instead of attempting to level the field at their level which
involves higher expenditure we should be looking for the lowest common
demonitor and have the playing field at a level that encourages the
most participation.

I would suggest that the F2F meetings be extrememly limited and that
more economical means of communication be employed.  I futher suggest
that there be strict guidelines on how the ICANN Board is approached.
I would like to see hallway negotiations abolished.  No more of the
back room meetings.

If all communication was conducted and only accepted at a level
available to all, the issue of funding and equality is dealt with.

My proposal is that all ICANN communications/meetings be conducted
online and in the mailing lists.  All hard copy documentation
including internal correspondance be made public on the website and we
have a fully open system.  (note: some sensitive correspondance may be
excluded)

One of the reasons for this suggestion is that even if we evolve both
internal and external funding, there will always be inequality between
those who have good finances and those who don't.  We can never hope
to match the expenditure some large companies may be willing to put
into the ICANN process.  We can not enforce equality as the system
currently stands.  We need to place limits so that those with
financial advantages only have the same access as those with limited
funds.  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
Let us make that our base line.  Not the higher level of needing to
attend F2F meetings and invest large sums into a process we are all
contributing to as volunteers.

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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 18:52:56 -0600
From: "Earl Heather" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Considering the excellent quality of your analysis, you shouldn't worry 
about your participation levels being down.

Gems like this contribution demonstrate that content rather than 
volume is what moves us ahead.

Thanks

pheather

> I'm afraid my participation levels are down at the moment and may get
> worse due to actually having a real life as opposed to how some people
> may see my activities :).  However, I have been giving the subject of
> funding some thought.
> 
> snip ....................................
>
> Perhaps instead of attempting to level the field at their level which
> involves higher expenditure we should be looking for the lowest common
> demonitor and have the playing field at a level that encourages the
> most participation.
> 
> I would suggest that the F2F meetings be extrememly limited and that
> more economical means of communication be employed.  I futher suggest
> that there be strict guidelines on how the ICANN Board is approached.
> I would like to see hallway negotiations abolished.  No more of the
> back room meetings.
> 
> If all communication was conducted and only accepted at a level
> available to all, the issue of funding and equality is dealt with.
> 
> My proposal is that all ICANN communications/meetings be conducted
> online and in the mailing lists.  All hard copy documentation
> including internal correspondance be made public on the website and we
> have a fully open system.  (note: some sensitive correspondance may be
> excluded)
> 
> One of the reasons for this suggestion is that even if we evolve both
> internal and external funding, there will always be inequality between
> those who have good finances and those who don't.  We can never hope
> to match the expenditure some large companies may be willing to put
> into the ICANN process.  We can not enforce equality as the system
> currently stands.  We need to place limits so that those with
> financial advantages only have the same access as those with limited
> funds.  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
> Let us make that our base line.  Not the higher level of needing to
> attend F2F meetings and invest large sums into a process we are all
> contributing to as volunteers.
> 
> 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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 03:15:23 +0200
From: Jefsey Morfin <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Dassa,
for once I am 100% with you. Even if I think easier to show things and 
attract that to force people. What you describe is what I call "going 
Estonian".

Estonia is an incredible story. The government went Internet the way you 
describe. And now the citizens may share in the Government meetings 
decisions in real time!  And it works. They are going to extend the system 
to cities, public services and university administration.

What is interesting is it is becoming there part of their culture. Then you 
do not need to impose it because everyone goes by it. And understand why it 
is better.

Our world changes. And time to time it is for the better.

I would like to propose something: that we use the BPs of Bill and Joana, 
Joop's IDNO management rules, the rules of different MLs we know, may be 
trying to get in touch with Estonian system developers, etc... and instead 
of debating we try to *specify* from experience such a system we could use.

You may remember we discussed technical details at length one year ago with 
WXW? Why not to have another attempt? All the debates in here that Roberto 
and Harald lead would also serve.

I am sure that good specifications and the aura of the ICANN would interest 
software publishers and we could have a free beta system. We could then 
share in the improvement definitions. Many governance groups in the world 
could benefit from such a system too.

Jefsey

On 01:47 26/08/01, Dassa said:
>I'm afraid my participation levels are down at the moment and may get
>worse due to actually having a real life as opposed to how some people
>may see my activities :).  However, I have been giving the subject of
>funding some thought.
>
>Funding for the GA and DNSO or any of the ICANN bodies is not a simple
>matter.  I see a lot of discussion on how it is pay to play and about
>the inequality of the system.  I suggest a complete turn around with
>our thinking.  Instead of discussing ICANN or external sources funding
>attendance at F2F meetings and so forth, we should look at ways to
>minimise financial commitment by participants and limiting some of the
>advantages those with good financial backing may have.
>
>It is commonly understood that those with financial advantages are
>able to participate at the F2F meetings and exert more influence by
>having a large presence at all such meetings.  They are also able to
>engage in more direct communications with the ICANN Board by way of
>having more direct contact.
>
>Perhaps instead of attempting to level the field at their level which
>involves higher expenditure we should be looking for the lowest common
>demonitor and have the playing field at a level that encourages the
>most participation.
>
>I would suggest that the F2F meetings be extrememly limited and that
>more economical means of communication be employed.  I futher suggest
>that there be strict guidelines on how the ICANN Board is approached.
>I would like to see hallway negotiations abolished.  No more of the
>back room meetings.
>
>If all communication was conducted and only accepted at a level
>available to all, the issue of funding and equality is dealt with.
>
>My proposal is that all ICANN communications/meetings be conducted
>online and in the mailing lists.  All hard copy documentation
>including internal correspondance be made public on the website and we
>have a fully open system.  (note: some sensitive correspondance may be
>excluded)
>
>One of the reasons for this suggestion is that even if we evolve both
>internal and external funding, there will always be inequality between
>those who have good finances and those who don't.  We can never hope
>to match the expenditure some large companies may be willing to put
>into the ICANN process.  We can not enforce equality as the system
>currently stands.  We need to place limits so that those with
>financial advantages only have the same access as those with limited
>funds.  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.
>Let us make that our base line.  Not the higher level of needing to
>attend F2F meetings and invest large sums into a process we are all
>contributing to as volunteers.
>
>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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:06:36 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?

Mr. Walsh,

Most of the time you expound legal principals which are erroneous at best in that
you have no legal or legal scholarly training and jump to ridiculous conclusions.
Now you jump to research conclusions which reveal a whole new level of ignorance.
The research you do not know and I have forgotten could fill a library.

Show me one sentence in one place where one matter was voted upon that demands
suspension.  Just one smart man.  If you can I shall self suspend for 48 hours.
You may want to callaborate with Mr Svensson.  the offer remains open for 24
hours.  Do not promote vagueness for a taking of a right should be very specific.

Eric

William X Walsh wrote:

> Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 12:49:31 PM, William X Walsh wrote:
>
> > Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 6:50:24 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>
> >> reason why Danny cannot simply order that they be implemented.  If Swensson
> >> can unilaterally suspend me from the list based upon rules not voted upon
>
> > The list rules were voted on.
>
> Since you can't seem to do your own research before jumping to
> conclusion, let me point out the relevant vote for you:
>
> http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.html
>
> --
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
>
> --
> 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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:13:49 -0700
From: Roeland Meyer <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Apologize to all dial-up users if they feel that they have been disparaged.
Kent and Vany have valid points. Even many USA residents are still forced to
settle for dial-up lines. There are technical means to work around that
problem that many cannot avail themselves of (like having your own mail
server behind that dail-up link). I sometimes forget that not all of us here
are engineers and Unix jocks. My apologies to all, for that lapse.

|> From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Saturday, August 25, 2001 9:19 AM
|> 
|> Roeland and all:
|> 
|> I appreacite that Kent has remember to all of us about this issue.
|> I don't know about Kent, but I, from my home as many 
|> panamanians, many
|> latinamericans, africans, asians, etc, from
|> their homes use dialup lines with modems of 33.6K and 56K.  
|> So, Kent has a
|> point.
|> 
|> I know in USA a DSL with a downstream of 2Mbps costs $50.00 
|> a month.  Here
|> in Panama the same can cost $500.00 a month.

think, "store and forward".

|> On Sat, 25 Aug 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> 
|> > Are you on a dial-up line these days?
|> >
|> > |> From: Kent Crispin [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> > |> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 10:00 PM
|> > |>
|> > |> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 06:31:56PM -0400, Derek Conant wrote:
|> > |> > Now respectfully, you should know better than to 
|> waste your time
|> > |> > supporting a position that will never be actualized.
|> > |>
|> > |> Derek, I wonder if you would mind editing out the 
|> useless volumes of
|> > |> quoted text from your email messages.  There is absolutely
|> > |> no reason to
|> > |> subject us to receiving the same stuff 3 or 4 times over...
- --
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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 21:40:13 -0700
From: "William S. Lovell" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Roeland Meyer wrote:

> Apologize to all dial-up users if they feel that they have been disparaged.
> Kent and Vany have valid points. Even many USA residents are still forced to
> settle for dial-up lines. There are technical means to work around that
> problem that many cannot avail themselves of (like having your own mail
> server behind that dail-up link). I sometimes forget that not all of us here
> are engineers and Unix jocks. My apologies to all, for that lapse.

Excellent, Roeland!  Not everyone here is an ICANN expert, either, and
I've always tried to push the idea that the GA is really a cross-section of
all kinds of folks, some "Unix jocks," some attorneys, some whatever,
all of whom have things of value to contribute, which they can do more
readily if it is remembered that those whom they address may or may not
be members of that person's own particular field of work. (To help show
what all this ga list blather is all about anyway, I've added a couple more
links to my sig file, kindly supplied by Elisabeth Porteneuve.)

(I'm a trapped dial-in user: the Roads End region of Lincoln City, OR,
on Sprint lines, has no DSL capability. :-(  )

Bill Lovell

- --

The URLs for Best Practices:
DNSO Citation:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.html
(Under "Other Information Documents"; "August 2001:
Proposal for Best Practices for the DNSO GA")
Part I:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BestPractices.html
Part II:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20010813.GA-BP-flowchart.pdf
(Access to the .pdf file requires the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
available for free down load at
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.)
General voting rules for  GA mailing lists and the GA itself:
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2000.GA-ga-roo-vote.html
Statistics on GA list participation:
http://www.dnso.org/statistics/dnsostatistics.html
(automaticaly calculated each Sunday morning)
Almost everything about the General Assembly:
ttp://www.dnso.org/dnso/gaindex.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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:24:31 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Dear fellow netizens,

I just finished a fine tour of SouthEast Asia.  It just so happens I am in the biz
so I frequented Internet Cafes.  The extra stuff really hurt on time and actually
prohibited some reading.  On this list it is fairly easy; you pick the last in a
thread and get it all so you can avoid reading the full chronology, but that ends
up in 30 and the networks sometimes don't seem to have the umph necessary to bring
it up.

And so I said to myself while drinking coffee and waiting and watching, How many
members do not participate because they are on weak dial ups?  The answer is many,
many many!!  But that is a no brainer, Monday I start negotiations to bring those
places more of the umph.

We must grapple with this question always: Do we change our behavior because
technology lags behind, or do we continue on and force technology and money to
solve the problems?  I cannot write it but I have learned in four other languages
to ask "what came first the chicken or the egg?"  As a poly-wog I say we keep
pressing the envelope and my techno-weenies will beat us to the solution.  What
the hell is multilingualism if it is not bridging the digital divide.

In conclusion I guess I throw my hat in and say; *cut the tail off the comet, if
you have a light it will shine just as bright without displaying a legacy*

Eric

"William S. Lovell" wrote:

> Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> > Apologize to all dial-up users if they feel that they have been disparaged.
> > Kent and Vany have valid points. Even many USA residents are still forced to
> > settle for dial-up lines. There are technical means to work around that
> > problem that many cannot avail themselves of (like having your own mail
> > server behind that dail-up link). I sometimes forget that not all of us here
> > are engineers and Unix jocks. My apologies to all, for that lapse.
>
> Excellent, Roeland!  Not everyone here is an ICANN expert, either, and
> I've always tried to push the idea that the GA is really a cross-section of
> all kinds of folks, some "Unix jocks," some attorneys, some whatever,
> all of whom have things of value to contribute, which they can do more
> readily if it is remembered that those whom they address may or may not
> be members of that person's own particular field of work. (To help show
> what all this ga list blather is all about anyway, I've added a couple more
> links to my sig file, kindly supplied by Elisabeth Porteneuve.)
>
> (I'm a trapped dial-in user: the Roads End region of Lincoln City, OR,
> on Sprint lines, has no DSL capability. :-(  )
>
> Bill Lovell
>

- --
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: Sat, 25 Aug 2001 22:31:22 -0700
From: William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re[2]: [ga] Best Practices/ who objects?

Saturday, Saturday, August 25, 2001, 9:06:36 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:

> Mr. Walsh,

> Most of the time you expound legal principals which are erroneous at best in that
> you have no legal or legal scholarly training and jump to ridiculous conclusions.
> Now you jump to research conclusions which reveal a whole new level of ignorance.
> The research you do not know and I have forgotten could fill a library.

> Show me one sentence in one place where one matter was voted upon that demands
> suspension.  Just one smart man.  If you can I shall self suspend for 48 hours.
> You may want to callaborate with Mr Svensson.  the offer remains open for 24
> hours.  Do not promote vagueness for a taking of a right should be very specific.

No one has claimed that suspensions were mandatory, according to the
VOTED ON RULES, they are at the discretion of the MODERATORS, subject
to appeal to the Chair.

No one has said otherwise.

- ----------------
A list monitor may impose 2 sanctions against offenders:

- - Monitoring of posts. This will cause delay of postings from the affected 
  individual until a list moderator approves them as being within the content 
  rules, or rejects them
- - Suspension of posting rights. This will cause mail from that person not to be
  sent to the GA list.

Both sanctions are imposed for a limited period of time (typically 2 weeks), 
and are announced on the mailing list. Repeat offenders may get correspondingly 
longer sentences (for instance 4 weeks for a second offense, 8 weeks for a third).
The period is decided by the list monitor.
- ------------------

Why you got on this diatribe I do not know.

I will say that I have lodged a complaint with the moderators about
your message above.

- -- 
Best regards,
William X Walsh <[email-masked]>
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
DNS Services from $1.65/mo

- --
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, 26 Aug 2001 19:24:43 +1000
From: "Dassa" <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:[email-masked]]
|> Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 9:19 PM
|> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
|> Cc: [email-masked]
|> Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Jeff

If you don't stop sending multiple copies I'm afraid I'm going to
start sending all your mail to /dev/null.  Getting multiple copies
gets annoying after awhile.

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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 16:32:59 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Endorsements

At 04:05 26/08/01, Eric Dierker wrote:

>JEFSEY
>
>In Melbourne I watched a dignified man command authority and respect
>during the raucous caucus of the GAC, he took the time to shake my hand
>and welcome a dot commoner to the foray. In his eyes I felt a deep
>concern for us. I felt as though I should call him captain, because I
>would have ultimate trust in his handling of my ship and the lives of
>our crew and passengers.  Such would be his stewardship of his
>responsibilities to the GA.

I am highly surprised to hear that Jefsey was in Melbourne.

Please confirm or deny, Jefsey.

- --Joop

- --
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, 26 Aug 2001 16:41:47 +1200
From: Joop Teernstra <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

At 04:19 26/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
>Roeland and all:
>
>I appreacite that Kent has remember to all of us about this issue.
>I don't know about Kent, but I, from my home as many panamanians, many
>latinamericans, africans, asians, etc, from
>their homes use dialup lines with modems of 33.6K and 56K.  So, Kent has a
>point.

He is totally right on this point.
Those dialup lines are so often shared and subdivided that the real 
bandwidth can drop to 9600 or less.
In Santiago and the Philippines downloading the list traffic could take 30 
minutes sometimes.
Trimming messages is elementary courtesy towards those with bandwidth 
constraints.

- --Joop

- --
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, 26 Aug 2001 08:03:07 -0400
From: "Ken Stubbs" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

here ! here !

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Joop Teernstra" <[email-masked]>
To: "Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 12:41 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

> At 04:19 26/08/01, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> >Roeland and all:
> >
> >I appreacite that Kent has remember to all of us about this issue.
> >I don't know about Kent, but I, from my home as many panamanians, many
> >latinamericans, africans, asians, etc, from
> >their homes use dialup lines with modems of 33.6K and 56K.  So, Kent has
a
> >point.
>
> He is totally right on this point.
> Those dialup lines are so often shared and subdivided that the real
> bandwidth can drop to 9600 or less.
> In Santiago and the Philippines downloading the list traffic could take 30
> minutes sometimes.
> Trimming messages is elementary courtesy towards those with bandwidth
> constraints.
>
>
>
>
>
> --Joop
>
> --
> 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: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 09:40:43 -0400
From: Sandy Harris <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] ICANN | Advisory | 23 August 2001

Joop Teernstra wrote:
> 
>  Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> >
> >I appreacite that Kent has remember to all of us about this issue.
> > ...
> 
> He is totally right on this point. ...

Yes.

> Trimming messages is elementary courtesy towards those with bandwidth
> constraints.

It is critically important for those with limited modem bandwidth, but
it is also better for the rest of us. In effect it saves bandwidth for
the eyes and brain.

For that matter, it also reduces load on the mailservers, saves storage
space on servers, in the list archive and on recipients' disks, and
saves bandwdith on the links between servers. These issues aren't as 
vital as the ones in the  previous paragraph, but they are worth 
considering.

There's a FAQ on mailing list ettiquette:
http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html

The section on this question:

| When replying, should I quote the previous message? 

| Most certainly. You should always provide some context to your replies
| so that people who may not have been following the thread closely, or
| who have other things on their minds will easily be able to determine
| what you're talking about. 

| However, when quoting, be very careful to edit the quoted sections down
| to the bare minimum of text needed to maintain the context for your
| reply. There is very little on a mailing list that is more annoying 
| than paging through a few pages of quoted text only to read a few lines
| at the end. Also be careful that you clearly indicate what text you're
| quoting (as opposed to what you're writing), and if possible, cite the
| author of the original text. 
|
| If your mail program wants to attach the whole message you're replying
| to on the end of your replies, please do not let it do this if you can
| possibly avoid it. It is a good thing to include excerpts from previous
| messages with your replies to maintain a logical flow of discussion,
| but it is almost always a bad thing to include the entire text of a
| message being replied to, be it at the start or end of your reply.
- --
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, 26 Aug 2001 07:27:05 -0700
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Comets

Dear Dotcommoners,

Mr. Joop and Mr. Sandy are speaking quite well in your interests.  I am lead
to understand that among us dotcommoners 95% are on dial up.  Their logic and
concern is quite friendly, and I see absolutely no ulterior notions being
advanced here.

The one factor in argument against these propositions is that by leaving the
trail on the comet one can simply go to the last heading of the flight and
review the entire history in one lock on to the flight.  In other words if
you leave the entire thread history upon each post then anyone reading it can
ignore all prior posts on the thread and simply review one post and get it
all.  this is better for one who only reviews the list a couple times a week
but worse for those who stay up to beat on a several times a day basis.

For me I zero in on the personalities;  Jeff leaves it all, so if I am in an
Internet Cafe in the Philippines I avoid his posts unless I want the entire
history.  Sandy I can usually count on to properly snip and make a short
concise point. Unless I had unlimited time I would never pull my posts up;-}

The conclusion is that we should follow etiquette and make no law effecting
manners. Cowboys and Indians and Gentlemen should respect each other and
simply try not to offend.

Sincerely,
Eric

Sandy Harris wrote:

> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> >  Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
> > >
> > >I appreacite that Kent has remember to all of us about this issue.
> > > ...
> >
> > He is totally right on this point. ...
>
> Yes.
>
> > Trimming messages is elementary courtesy towards those with bandwidth
> > constraints.
>
> It is critically important for those with limited modem bandwidth, but
> it is also better for the rest of us. In effect it saves bandwidth for
> the eyes and brain.
>
> For that matter, it also reduces load on the mailservers, saves storage
> space on servers, in the list archive and on recipients' disks, and
> saves bandwdith on the links between servers. These issues aren't as
> vital as the ones in the  previous paragraph, but they are worth
> considering.
>
> There's a FAQ on mailing list ettiquette:
> http://www.gweep.ca/~edmonds/usenet/ml-etiquette.html
>
> The section on this question:
>
> | When replying, should I quote the previous message?
>
> | Most certainly. You should always provide some context to your replies
> | so that people who may not have been following the thread closely, or
> | who have other things on their minds will easily be able to determine
> | what you're talking about.
>
> | However, when quoting, be very careful to edit the quoted sections down
> | to the bare minimum of text needed to maintain the context for your
> | reply. There is very little on a mailing list that is more annoying
> | than paging through a few pages of quoted text only to read a few lines
> | at the end. Also be careful that you clearly indicate what text you're
> | quoting (as opposed to what you're writing), and if possible, cite the
> | author of the original text.
> |
> | If your mail program wants to attach the whole message you're replying
> | to on the end of your replies, please do not let it do this if you can
> | possibly avoid it. It is a good thing to include excerpts from previous
> | messages with your replies to maintain a logical flow of discussion,
> | but it is almost always a bad thing to include the entire text of a
> | message being replied to, be it at the start or end of your reply.
> --
> 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, 26 Aug 2001 11:23:42 -0400
From: Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] GA/DNSO Funding Issues

Hi Dassa:

Please, note that the subject of GA/DNSO funding issues that your are
dealing here is only with the accesibility to ICANN Process by attending
meetings or having meetings online, etc.

There are other issues related DNSO funding that are not related with
the
issue you are exposing here and that I will deal apart.

Please keep reading.

Dassa wrote:

> My proposal is that all ICANN communications/meetings be conducted
> online and in the mailing lists.  All hard copy documentation
> including internal correspondance be made public on the website and we
> have a fully open system.  (note: some sensitive correspondance may be
> excluded)

Wow Dassa.   I remember you was one of the remote participants of the
NCDNHC meeting in Melbourne with VRVS.

However, I think this is  too extreme.  I think still we need F2F
interaction.  I think your proposal can be equilibred with a combination
of both things:  more online meetings, less F2F meetings.

Only there is a thing that you are  missing when the meetings are
online:  Time Zone.  I don't think a decision taker person is in its
best
state of mind at 2:00 a.m. in the morning.

Also there is another thing that maybe it worries to ICANN:
Accountability.  Are the online meetings accountable?

I think that we must ask ICANN Board and staff about such accountability
issue, and any other issue around online meetings.
Why the need of F2F meetings?  We have to take in count also ICANN staff
and board needs.  They are also a party in this issue.

> One of the reasons for this suggestion is that even if we evolve both
> internal and external funding, there will always be inequality between
> those who have good finances and those who don't.

Sadly, yes.  But even with online meetings, then the disadvantage will
remain, because there are many people with not enough bandwith or even
not able to buy a good modem that wouldn't be able to participate in
online meetings.
We will have always people that remains outside the process, and then we
will need always to find funds in order to make such disadvantages come
closer as possible to the process.

Neither technology neither financial resources should be an obstacle. 
We
have also to keep in mind this, since not everybody is connected to the
Internet properly.

> We can never hope
> to match the expenditure some large companies may be willing to put
> into the ICANN process.

Agree.

> We can not enforce equality as the system
> currently stands.

Agree.  Even in the best democracy, people living far away from votation
centers has to walk one or two hours in order to vote.
So, only the one with the energy to walk such distance will vote.
However, our system as they are, cannot fullfill that votation centers
are so close to be easy to access for every citizen.
This is a problem that is, right now outside the scope of ICANN,
although
ICANN should be sensible to this.

> We need to place limits so that those with
> financial advantages only have the same access as those with limited
> funds.

Agree with this though.  We must find the way how to do it that no one
feels excluded neither disadvantaged

>  The common ground for the majority is access to the Internet.

Yes, this is true.  But still we must work together with organizations,
who knows, even governments, in order to assure that
the stakeholders has a proper access.  Many participants of this process
doesn't have a proper access to the Internet.

> Let us make that our base line.  Not the higher level of needing to
> attend F2F meetings and invest large sums into a process we are all
> contributing to as volunteers.

Althouhg I like this thinking, please, keep in mind that anyway, some
F2F
meetings will be required.
We must find an equilibria in this.

I propose that the ICANN works in this issue in order to increase the
accesibility of everybody in ICANN process by lower the difference
between the ones with resources, and the ones without resources.

In order to begin, I think that the DNSO must propose to ICANN the
formation of a group to work on this issue.  Such group should include
people from: ICANN staff, ICANN Board or a delegate, DNSO
(Constituencies, NC, GA), GAC, ASO and PSO.
I think in this proposal should be included, mission, objectives, the
importance both for ICANN and stakeholders, etc.

Other thoughs?

Best Regards
Vany

- --
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
e-mail: [email-masked]
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

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

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #703
************************