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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I like your logic. However we are a little squeezed on lists for the moment and I am afraid we will have to put the cart in front of the horse for a bit while we try to reach some compliance with the By-Laws Danny cited.
   
  The reasons for my initial dislike for lists is being addressed and noted and I think on the forefront of peoples minds. Sometimes this is all it takes to avoid pitfalls. I really do not see anything wrong with a dual list system with everything readabale yet one closed off to get the work done.
   
  Let us build it before we ask others to come. Outreach is huge but we have to have an in before we have an out.
   
  If we organize into groups first it will be more manageable to move on from there.
   
  Eric

"Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Hi Jeff,

The initial "We" refers to our small company and does not refer to Chris.

Our initial recommendation is to create WGs with posting limited to
designated participants. Anyone may read these posts. Each WG sub-forum is
then created for anyone to read and / or comment. The WG suggestions /
comments forum would also serve the purpose of educating newbies who are
starting to familiarize themselves with ICANN issues for the first time. It
does not make sense to combine serious in-depth discussions of a WG with
other discussions that are just getting up to speed. Have you ever noticed
how a slow driver can slow down all the people driving behind him / her? Our
intent with the primary WG forum and the WG sub-forum with suggestions /
comments is to increase efficiency, not to stop anyone from having their
voice heard.

We believe that it is better to initially segregate the WG forum from the WG
sub-forum with suggestions / comments. It would be far easier to merge the
two together at a later date if so desired, than the alternative of starting
with one forum and then later splitting them into two by revoking
privileges.

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" 
To: "Prophet Partners Inc." 
Cc: 
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:53 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA


> Ted and all,
>
> Thank you for your kindly reply. However if anyone cannot actively
> participate on any WG list or sublist than it is not open and transparent,
> ergo anyone must be able to post as well as read. All 134,000 members
> of our organization can actively participate in any topic we may have
ongoing
> and their is little disruption although very few actively on a regular
basis.
> However
> I also understand your point, yet I believe it is overstated and
premature.
> BTW,
> whom is the "we" you mentioned?
>
> In any event Dr. Dierker is the chair and this is his decision to make
> regarding whom may actively participate on any WG list or sublist. In
> any event if any WG list or sublist as to whom may and whom may
> not actively participate ergo selective censorship the results will be
> limited and/or reflect those which are allowed to actively participate.
> Hence said results may or may not end up with a better product, in
> this case a better RAA...
>
> My participation will be limited and be centered in favor of
> registrants vs registrars/registries. I am also of the belief that
> data escrow is entragel to a better RAA as is security, control,
> and access to any individual registrants registration data records.
>
> Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
>
> > 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" 
> > To: "Prophet Partners Inc." 
> > Cc: 
> > 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" 
> > > > To: "Jeff Williams" ; "GA"

> > > > 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" 
> > > > > To: "GA" 
> > > > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>



       
---------------------------------
Don't get soaked.  Take a quick peak at the forecast 
 with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.