Re: GA WG lists: was[ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a better RAA

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ted and all,

Comment interspersed below.

Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:

> 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.

Ok good.  Dr. Dierkers seniority is far less than mine, yet he has a good
grasp of many of the issues from a non technical and administration view.
His legal knowledge is very good, and will be helpful as it already has been,
for a number of WG related aspects.  However no GA member should
defer to any other GA members knowledge, experience and seniority on
any WG.  I hope you were not suggesting such.

>
>
> Building a forum / website is not an overly challenging task.

Agreed.

> 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.

Also agreed here.  But we want to avoid any ability of capture a la the
old and defunct IDNO.  We also will be better off if we mimic the
current GNSO method or even better, if the GNSO will set up sublists
under gnso.icann.org than we can avoid individual capture.  As for
a different domain name for our WG's, naming and how it is managed
will be key.

  BTW Ted, we should keep general post like this off the
[RAA] working group.  So lets move this discussion if continued to
a thread that is not designated as [RAA], ok?  >:)

>
>
> 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

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