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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted and all,

  I don't know very many folks here on this GA list that are not
up to speed.  I know I am as I have been around sense before
ICANN was even in existence.  The only members of this GA
list that I know that have not been around long are yourself Ted,
Dominik, and Chris, and all of you have given good, relevant,
and directed ideas and comments.  So I don't see this as a very
big problem.

  ICANN is not likely, nor is the GNSO going to provide any
additional "FAQ's, policies, or acronyms for the purposes of
these new GA WG's.  New interested participants
will have to gather most if not all of such information for themselves
or with long time participants assistance as we go along and where
recognized on a case by case basis.  Ergo your thoughts here Ted
are well meaning, are very unlikely to come to pass and demonstrate
your "short timer" participation.  No offense.

Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:

> Adding further to the benefits to be gained from an external forum /
> website:
>
> 8) Cut down on the amount of spam sent to people on the GA list - Although
> the email addresses on this list are masked on the ICANN site to prevent
> spam, some GA subscribers republish posts on the web with full email
> addresses intact. Email addresses of forum participants would be hidden and
> thwart spam email harvesting.
> 9) Include a convenient reference section for ICANN FAQ's, policies,
> acronyms, bios and useful links to get people up to speed on ICANN issues -
> The less people are intimidated by the jargon, the more likely they are to
> participate. More participants would likely result in higher chances of
> success at ICANN reform.
>
> Sincerely,
> Ted
> Prophet Partners Inc.
> http://www.ProphetPartners.com
> http://www.Premium-Domain-Names.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
> >
> >
> >
> >

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