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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dr. Dierker and all,

  Good way to get things rolling.  I disagree with a dual list approach,

but I can live with it.  In that we are now limited by using this GA
list for these WG's, how does anyone envision effecting 2 lists for
each WG to be effected?  Sotiris seems to be ready to go with
the RAA WG using this GA list and indicating what is RAA related
by designating [RAA] in the subject to indicate RAA discussion.

Does Ted or Chris or anyone else have a proceeding in this way
for now?  If so, what does anyone else want  to actually do otherwise?
Chris, Ted, suggestions that either of you can effect now?

Hugh Dierker wrote:

>    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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

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