RE: [ga] GA list and the GNSO council

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Time restriction - How long and which zone to be worked on.
  No responses - or one - if you watch this list you note; it is the "barb for barb" that sucks us into off topic and personal attacks, and ten+ posts a day.
  Limit posts - obviously, we are not responding to major disasters here and anything more can be said the next time period  - It might even clear up Roberto's concern below.
   
  If we used these three methods in combination we could restrict posts basically by the earnestness of the poster. (yikes, back to my PC handbook, that looks like poser)
  I don't think anyone thinks opening up the NC list without some restriction is going to happen. Better to have some respected access than none.
   
  Eric

  
Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Danny,

I see that another habit that we have lost is to read the messages before
replying.

My referring to the "polite no" was related to Avri's reply to Jeff's
question that was not at all about intake, which if I remember correctly was
an issue raised by yourself, but about allowing the whole world to post to
the Name Council mailing list.

Those are two separate issues, and should not be confused. While the intake
mechanism has some merit, I don't think that to give full access to
everybody to the Name Council list can be a practical solution.

Regards,
Roberto



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
> Sent: 10 July 2007 14:56
> To: Roberto Gaetano; 'Gomes, Chuck'; jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; 'ga'
> Subject: RE: [ga] GA list and the GNSO council
> 
> ... and perhaps we have also lost respect for those not 
> currently represented in the GNSO Council that by rights 
> should have access to an intake procedure?
> 
> When the RegisterFly mess was unfolding I never once heard a 
> GNSO Council discussion on policy recommendations to address 
> the problems raised by registrants caught up in this 
> disaster. At least an intake mechanism as requested by Jeff 
> could point to the need to timely address serious concerns 
> that otherwise might not make it onto the Council's agenda.
> 
> It's too bad that you can't recognize the value of Jeff's 
> contribution... It's certainly a reasonable request, and it 
> does reflect a process previously agreed to by consensus 
> within the DNSO at the Council level.
> 
> --- Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> 
> > It was indeed a polite no.
> > Maybe we have lost the habit of politeness?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Roberto
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________
> ______________________
> Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever 
> you're surfing.
> http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php



       
---------------------------------
Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection.