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

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

Hi Jeff,

Being successful at anything requires either careful planning or sheer luck.
Given that careful planning has a more certain outcome, that is our
preference. Like a game of chess, careful planning should anticipate not
just the next step of your opponent, but their next several moves.

Try to look at the bigger picture, while contemplating possible future
steps. When we mentioned "get up to speed", we were not referring to the
active participants of the GA list. It is our opinion that most of the
people reading the GA list are lurkers. It is axiomatic that they have
varying degrees of interest in and comprehension of ICANN issues. We believe
that the goal of the GA list to reform flawed ICANN policies should be
viewed like a battle. By making it easier for people to join in discussions
and promote the best interests of Internet users, we can enlist a broader
base of active supporters, resulting in more pressure on ICANN to do the
right thing and achieve greater odds of success. Not only would more
participants get more accomplished, but the collective voice would be
louder, such that it would garner more attention from the DOC/NTIA, ICANN,
other government agencies, business organizations, non-profit organizations,
stakeholders, media and the general public. We believe that the time is ripe
to attract new participants, including those who are angry at ICANN's
mishandling of the Registerfly debacle, ICANN's questionable dealings with
VeriSign which have resulted in announced .com and .net price increases and
ICANN's clear failure to represent the community interest as evidenced by
the unanimous approval of the new .biz/.info/.org registry agreements.

It is specifically due to our relatively newcomer status, that we are
looking from the perspective of other people who may wish to become
participants, but find it too intimidating to do so. It is only after many
months that the opinions of the old-timers here toward us have shifted. This
following examples are not meant to single out Eric, as we believe that the
overall attitude of the GA list appears to be less than openly welcome,
"isolationist" if you will. While the active participants of the GA list
speak out for ICANN reform, it appears that the old timers here take some
comfort in the status quo regarding participation in the GA list.

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg04572.html
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06519.html

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: Thursday, April 12, 2007 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA


> 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
>
>
>
>
>