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

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

Hi Jeff,

We have no objection with Eric's preference, to first develop the WG groups
here on the GA list, before attempting to build out a new forum / website
designed to attract new participants. We defer to his knowledge, experience
and seniority on the GA list.

Building a forum / website is not an overly challenging task.We believe that
there are several active participants on the GA list with the abilities to
do so. There are several commercial forum packages that can be installed and
customized within several hours. There will be more effort maintaining the
forum / website than actually building it.

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Prophet Partners Inc." <Domains@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA


> 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