ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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


Ted, I would help even set it up. Most people are concerned about "owned" sites doing this though. So there would have to be thought put into how to make it so no one person has ultimate control of everything. take the domain name for instance. Who would own it? Who would have responsibility for backing it up, installing no spam modules, admin priveleges, etc. Those are all valid points that will definitely be brough up.

One solution that was explored a long time ago was the formation of a nonprofit organization whose sole mission was to provide this type of facilitation for and user-oriented group involved in Internet governance that would make tools available to all of them. Joop has been great with putting up a voting booth, but even that could be offered by this nonprofit that was created for that purpose. If the bylaws of the nonoprofit were written properly, then no deletions, censorship, etc. would be allowed. if the bylaws were written so that changing them was extremely difficult it would be even better. Most orgs do just the opposite and try to make sure they can change the bylaws whenever they want. By doing the opposite, we would give some security to those who used the tools.

It would also add creditbilty to groups if done properly. Properly still has to be defined and would require a lot of input from people who might use the tools offered. I would be happy to make a donation toward the startup of such a group. I'm sure there are others on this list who could do the same. It's not that expensive depending on where it is formed which opens up a whole other topic.

I don't think all that is necessary to start with, but should be considered as an option or a goal at some point.

Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
http://www.articlecontentprovider.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 2:59 PM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA



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






<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>