Re: [ga] Maintenance and Management of the GA

[Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi George.

> --- On Fri, 9/25/09, Thomas Narten <narten@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I would welcome a forum where general discussion of matters
> > of
> > importance to ICANN could be discussed in a thoughtful
> > manner. But
> > this list clearly does achieve such a goal, by almost any
> > metric one
> > could imagine. (My favorite metric is that Jeff Williams

> I believe you meant "doesn't achieve".

Indeed! Good catch!

> > dominates
> > this list in terms of number of postings, which pretty much
> > says it
> > all.)

> Exactly, thanks for running the weekly reports. Are you able to run
>  one massive report for all time periods since you've kept track?

Here is the summary for 2009 (so far):

script run at: Fri Sep 25 10:01:52 EDT 2009
 
    Messages   |      Bytes        | Who
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
 30.84% |  284 | 24.11% |  2347644 | jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 19.22% |  177 | 23.65% |  2303202 | hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
  8.58% |   79 | 10.65% |  1036823 | glen@xxxxxxxxx
  9.12% |   84 |  5.60% |   545034 | gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx
  4.99% |   46 |  9.29% |   904526 | baptista@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  4.45% |   41 |  8.38% |   816323 | debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  4.13% |   38 |  2.10% |   204449 | dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
  3.69% |   34 |  1.60% |   155567 | narten@xxxxxxxxxx
  1.19% |   11 |  3.36% |   327683 | jpalmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  2.28% |   21 |  1.78% |   173086 | tlda@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.98% |    9 |  1.76% |   171332 | dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx
  1.63% |   15 |  0.79% |    76684 | michele@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.91% |    88422 | theresa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.65% |    6 |  0.31% |    30202 | terastra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.54% |    5 |  0.31% |    30496 | roberto@xxxxxxxxx
  0.54% |    5 |  0.30% |    29600 | kent@xxxxxxxxx
  0.54% |    5 |  0.30% |    28965 | edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.54% |    5 |  0.28% |    27314 | avri@xxxxxxx
  0.54% |    5 |  0.24% |    23139 | karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.43% |    4 |  0.34% |    33231 | peter@xxxxxxxx
  0.33% |    3 |  0.39% |    38003 | rmohan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.47% |    46209 | elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.43% |    4 |  0.22% |    21776 | andy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.33% |    3 |  0.19% |    18638 | baxtertms@xxxxxxxxx
  0.33% |    3 |  0.18% |    17688 | cleong@xxxxxxxx
  0.33% |    3 |  0.16% |    15921 | avc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.33% |    3 |  0.13% |    12663 | jaap@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.19% |    18032 | tim@xxxxxxxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.18% |    17866 | jeff.neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.16% |    15306 | richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.14% |    13428 | cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.24% |    22924 | robert.hoggarth@xxxxxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.08% |     8104 | bortzmeyer@xxxxxx
  0.22% |    2 |  0.08% |     7667 | kim.davies@xxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.17% |    16583 | abel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.15% |    14378 | ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.14% |    13557 | matthew@xxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.12% |    11898 | rod.beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.09% |     8415 | maxbaz@xxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.09% |     8308 | chuck@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.08% |     8276 | myoung@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.07% |     7004 | hugo.monteiro@xxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.06% |     6153 | patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.06% |     6053 | jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.06% |     6025 | jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  0.11% |    1 |  0.04% |     3738 | andrewm@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
100.00% |  921 |100.00% |  9738335 | Total

> I think the best approach might be to let it continue, but create a
>  competing list. Given the competing list, as previously discussed,
>  most people who are serious and involved in constituencies would
>  unsubscribe from this one and join the new one. And perhaps you can
>  continue running the automated report on this list and add a
>  "reminder" to any newbie that finds it that they should join a
>  constituency to join the new list.

At this point, IMO, the burden of proof resides on those wanting to
self-organize.  This can be done via a private list unaffiliated with
ICANN. I don't think ICANN should be seen as blessing such an effort
because having the list hosted by ICANN would appear to give it a
stature that it in fact does not have, i.e., would in effect continue
the current situation we already have.

Thomas