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

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

Hi Jeff,

We think that it would be fair to say that as a group, the participants of
this mailing list all want to build a solid foundation, from which we can
express our collective opinions and bring long overdue reform to flawed
ICANN policies.

What we proposed earlier is completely open and transparent. Anybody can
read anything they want. In the interest of efficiency, only WG participants
should post to the WG. Other people with an interest can post their opinions
to the WG suggestions / comments forum. Nothing would get accomplished if
every person expressed their opinion through the WG. Could you imagine a
public company holding weekly meetings at which every stockholder expressed
their opinions? As the spokesman for the INEGroup, could you imagine the
ensuing chaos if every one of your 134,000 members had their word?
Certainly, you should be able to recognize the importance of hierarchy and
structure. With that being said, the number of participants in each WG is
fluid and individuals expressing the desire to join a particular WG can be
added as necessary.

The WG forums should be viewed as the detailed discussions for each issue,
while the GA list would include a summary of the WG findings. As the WG
forums would be categorized by topic and organized by date, it should be
much easier for people to follow and provide input on their particular areas
of interest. The GA mailing list may seem manageable in its present state
with an average of 10-15 messages per day. However, we would like to
eventually see increased participation from a wider segment of the Internet
community. In our opinion, getting broad based support from the Internet
community is the critical variable that will make our mission successful.

Contrary to what you may believe, many people prefer to drop into
discussions at forums at their own leisure and not get bombarded by emails
throughout the day. Although, the antiquated mailing list does work, we
believe that it is much less effective than a modernized online forum. Let
advances in technology help us move forward.

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:39 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA


> Ted, Chris and all,
>
> Ted and Chris, I disagree with both of your possitions here.
>
>   First, Ted we need to be open and transparent and allow anyone
> whom is willing be able to actively participate in any and all WG's
> the chair determines lest we fall victim to being like ICANN which is
> and has proven to be unhealthy.
>
>   Second Ted, part of your list below seems to make it even harder
> and more confusing for non WG members to follow as they would
> have two different places to look and review in order to follow
> adequately.
>
>   Third Chris, mailing list style is not out dated.  Blog style is
becoming
> a bad idea of late given fairly recent big media exposure to blog's
negative
> aspects.
>
>
> Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
>
> > 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
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>