RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

["Michael Collins" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik,

 

Thank you for volunteering to take on this task. It seems to me that finding
a solution to the problem of abusive tasting probably requires consideration
of all of the issues that have been identified and assigned to a thread. Do
you propose that discussion of solutions for abusive tasting that take
multiple issues into consideration use the catch all thread?

 

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Additional Topics and Views

 

Best regards,

Michael Collins

 <http://www.internetcommerce.org/> Internet Commerce Association

 

 

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Dominik Filipp
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 7:00 AM
To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Hugh Dierker; Joe Baptista
Cc: ga
Subject: RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

 

Hi Debbie,

 

Yes, you are right. This was also my intention at the very beginning. Ok,
the newly proposed sublevel threads regarding the desired granulation and
topic importance could be

 

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Typo Corrections

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Cart Hold

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Fraud Remedies

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Testing of Systems

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Buyer's Remorse

 

and the catch-all thread (necessary)

 

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Additional Topics and Views

 

I, personally, would not prefix the subject title by 'Draft Formal
Resolution' text as it would make the subject title too long and difficult
to read. Also, the five sublevels above are of generic nature and can be
used for variety of purposes not just for the formal resolution. I would
instead open (later on) an additional thread after collecting a sufficient
number of contributions delivered to the five generic threads, say

 

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - The Formal Resolution - Draft I

 

New threads can be opened (at the discretion of the moderator) at any time
if desired but I would like to restrict them to a reasonable small number.

 

Hope, I have also answered your second post.

 

Regards

 

Dominik

 

  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Debbie Garside
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:31 AM
To: 'ga'
Subject: RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

Hi Dominik

 

This looks really good and I am quite happy with the posting levels and
organisational details you propose.  

 

You may like to include the thread:

 

AGP - Draft Formal Resolution - Issue 1/2/3.... etc...

 

sooner rather than later so that we may work on the wording of the document
as issues are identified and agreed upon. 

 

I would also propose that you include and manage a sub-level for the two
threads you have proposed as I am sure there will be a number of separate
issues pertaining to each thread.  This will make it a little easier to
track consensus on each issue, whilst also tracking other opinions expresses
and will ultimately assist with the writing of the Formal Resolution.

 

Good Luck!

 

Best wishes

 

Debbie

 

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Dominik Filipp
Sent: 17 April 2008 09:09
To: Hugh Dierker
Cc: ga
Subject: RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

Eric and all,

 

Ok, thank you. I will step forward for the organizing of domain tasting
related posts.

 

Some my proposals

 

1. At the beginning, I see your and the list monitors' role to justify and
approve the daily posting limit. I would propose to go over to 10 posts per
day/person for issue-related posts while keeping the current 5 post limit
for other posts; that is, 15 posts/person/day collectively. Would it be ok?

 

2. Then I, as a moderator, would initially open 2 threads with subjects

 

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Registrars/Registries Concerns

GA_ISSUE-001: Domain Tasting | AGP - Additional Topics and Views

 

where

 

a) "GA_ISSUE-" an issue-related-post identifier; this can be used for
private post filtering and internal mail organization

b) "001" - the unique code of this first 'Domain Tasting' issue (1000 - 1
possible issues opened should be sufficient :-)

c) "Domain Tasting | AGP" - issue | category [| subcategory...] etc.

d) "- Registrars/Registries Concerns" - main thread topic

 

These threads should collect facts/views/opinions on the topics prior to
preparing the final resolution, which will be another 3. thread opened later
on.

 

Any ideas and/or wording corrections are appreciated.

 

Dominik

 

  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Hugh Dierker
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 8:25 PM
To: ga
Subject: Re: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

I find nothing disagreeable here. If some one will step forward for the
organizing of the contributions that would be our next step. (I cannot
organize my socks into same color pairs so I am not the one) If no one comes
forth I will search out and find someone.

 

Thank you both for your contributions.

 

Eric

chris@xxxxxx wrote: 

Dominik, just tell me what you want me to do. I'm all for option 3 without
the extra chatter.

 

Chris McElroy

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Dominik Filipp <mailto:dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>  

To: Hugh <mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>  Dierker 

Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 5:38 AM

Subject: RE: [ga] AGP Formal Resolution

 

Eric and others,

 

The resolution should gain more support within the GA to achieve al least a
certain degree of credibility.

 

I've been taking the bull by the horns for a while but this motion shouldn't
be a one man's show but rather a result of a comprehensible deliberation
over the issue discussed here. It all has started quite encouragingly with
number of Chris's, Jeff's and Karl's valuable contributions, just mentioning
a few. But the people here have apparently started feeling frustrated and
the number of relevant posts has decreased rapidly.

 

I understand that everyone is already fed up with all that perpetual
ignorance but I see three ways how to proceed further. We can let things
slide, or chatter about everything during coffee breaks, or go into it. As
for me, I am wavering between the first and the third option. It depends on
the overall support gained here on the GA. Maybe some of us are feeling
frustrated or a bit paralyzed but I think the intellectual potential
presented here is a good basis for self-confidence. It is very likely that
we were able to collect more evidence than all other official bodies have
done so far collectively. In fact, only the registrars/registries were able
to issue relevant arguments worth considering and elaborating on. The rest
is mostly just a masquerade.

There is also another dimension to consider; an attempt to build up and test
a real bottom-up process to find out whether this is doable at all. But the
decision is, of course, up to everyone.

 

Ok, stop chattering now. Eric, the formal resolution will require some sort
of minor management as well as some small modifications to take into effect.
It is likely that once the motion gains more support the daily post limit
will be found insufficient. Also the resulting resolution will likely be
seconded and eventually issued as a pdf document, ok? I personally do not
want to discuss too much over the management details but rather get it
running and to correcting it on the fly.

 

I can moderate this issue on the GA. The first step could be opening a
thread on the issue. I would start with the five registrars/registries
concerns enumerated in the official domain tasting report. Several posts
sent here already address these concerns more in detail so those can be
further discussed or recollected.

 

Would it be acceptable?

 

Dominik

 

  _____  

From: Hugh Dierker [mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2008 12:23 AM
To: Dominik Filipp; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Formal resolution

Dominik,

 

Absolutely. Somehow we should start with taking our header string and
actually narrowing it down further as there are some relevant yet
innapplicable posts there.

The person - selfulfilling, most interested in the matter should take the
bull by the horns.

I of course will be here to assist as will many other GA members. 

We will be heard if a credible resolution is passed.

 

Eric


Eric,

What about to prepare the more formal GA resolution regarding the AGP
you have proposed?
We could start collecting relevant points regarding this.

Dominik

________________________________

> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Hugh Dierker
> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 8:18 PM
> To: debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules

> ...

> We are at a point for the first time in months,
> that the list is coalescing into the form of
> producing a statement/motion. The AGP issue
> seems to have come to a head and more formal
> resolution procedures may be appropriate.
> I believe it is at a motion stage with 4 seconds.
> If the desire is to move forward in a constructive
> effective matter, we should hear that from the members.

> Eric

 

  _____  

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http:/mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8H
DtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ%20>  it now.