Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA

["Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Chris,

We're in agreement with you that WG forums hosted elsewhere would be a
better alternative. Doing so would address the following:

1) Limit postings in each WG only to WG participants
2) Provide full transparency by allowing non-WG participants to follow
developments in each WG
3) Encourage people intimidated by the GA mailing list to participate in the
forums - perhaps through a separate suggestions forum for each WG
4) Findings of each WG are then posted to the GA list
5) Prevent censorship by ICANN - as witnessed by the recent deletion of the
registry / registrar lists after the Registerfly meltdown
6) Build a mailing list that could be tapped into for future grass roots
campaigns - perhaps by getting people to opt-in to a monthly newsletter
7) Website traffic and referrer stats would provide insight into what ICANN
topics are of interest to the general public

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPartners.com
http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA


> A WG is formed to work on a specific topic. trying to discuss ten things
at
> once is an obvious distraction. it would still be done mailing list style
> even though that is totally outdated and not user-friendly for most users.
>
> Forums would still be a better option and more people are familiar with
> forums and how to use them and they find it easier because it is separated
> into different threads.
>
> The mailing list is archaic and only of use to a few people who can follow
> it.
>
> However, since it seems no one involved in Internet governance can seem to
> grasp the whole forum concept we will always use a mailing list and will
> always have limited participation, which I believe is the real goal of
> proponents of this method of communication.
>
> Having at least a separate mailing list for a WG until it achieves it's
goal
> is necessary in my opnion.
>
> Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "GA" <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 5:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA
>
>
> > Joop and all,
> >
> > What distractions, and distractions from what exactly are you
> > referring to for a list based WG, Joop?
> >
> > [RAA] is in the subject line, and this is also what Dr. Dierker had
> > already suggested.
> >
> > CC'ing is not a bad thing depending on if whom is being CC'ed is
> > a list member or not.  If not CC'ing is for informational purposes
> > and is beneficial as such.  Otherwise CC'ing is overly redundant.
> >
> > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> >
> >>    At 12:28 a.m. 10/04/2007, kidsearch wrote:
> >> >Eric, there is a problem I'd like to address. Whenever a WG is formed
> >> but
> >> >still posts to the list, even with the subject line changed, people
> >> not
> >> >involved in the WG continue to comment. I understand the need for
> >> >transparency and agree with anything that makes things more
> >> transparent.
> >> >However, I run a nonprofit org and whenever a committee is formed to
> >> >discuss a particular topic, they do it among themselves and take
> >> minutes
> >> >so others can read what went on in those discussions. Then the
> >> committee
> >> >reports their findings back to the board. it's efficient.
> >> >
> >> >I think a WG should have their own mailing list and archives that
> >> anyone
> >> >can read. If you really want to get something done, then a WG has to
> >> be
> >> >formed and allowed to get their work done, then report their findings
> >> back
> >> >to the list. That's my opinion.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Eric,
> >>
> >> I agree with Chris. We can report weekly or fortnightly to the list,
> >> but in
> >> order to get work done, we need to be free from distractions and
> >> possible
> >> trolling.
> >> As long as we have to operate by cc-ing, I would like to ask WG
> >> participants to put [RAA] in the subject line.
> >>
> >>
> >> -joop-
> >>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
> > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
> >   Abraham Lincoln
> >
> > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
> > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> >
> > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
> > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
> > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> > United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
> > ===============================================================
> > Updated 1/26/04
> > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> > IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827