[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [ga] Final draft of proposed mailing list rules
- From: Jeff Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 15:55:43 -0800
- CC: "Alejandro Pisanty, DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <email@example.com>, Andrew Pincus <APincus@doc.gov>, Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Elloit Maxwell <email@example.com>, Eric Menge <Eric.Menge@sba.gov>, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, George Conrades <email@example.com>, james tierney <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Jane Coffin <email@example.com>, "Joe (Virus Laden Web Page Expert) Sims" <Joe_Sims@jonesday.com>, Larry Irving <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Louis L. Touton" <Louis_L._Touton@jonesday.com>, Louis Touton <email@example.com>, Mike Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "vinton g. cerf - ISOC" <vcerf@MCI.NET>, William Daley <email@example.com>
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <20000120085826.8596032D13@smtp1-out.minitel.net>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Roberto and all,
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
> You wrote:
> >Also true, but I don't think very relevant. Current plans call for
> >there being 5000 members, a figure that can only be reached by some
> >totally different process. The entire current ga would be 5% of the
> >membership. The active members on the list would be like 2%.
> IMHO, the statement you make is just the proof that the situation of the
> GA "as is" needs to be improved (in quantity and quality).
I agree. Mostly on the quantity side.
> >Some interest, perhaps. But that at-large membership is not going to
> >be just a 5000 member mailing list -- the situation in the GA doesn't
> But this, again, is just proof that we need to change.
Change is something that is going on as we speak. It may not be radical
as Kent would like to see it. And I would agree. Direction of change is
also important as well. But direction should be a free flow situation so as
to better represent the "Interested Parties" the White Paper envisions and
> IMHO we need to define a "real" membership of the DNSO-GA, which has to
> go beyond the mailing list, because decisions, recommendations,
> elections, you name it, cannot be meanigfully managed in a single, large
> mailing list.
Sure they can Roberto. It is done on a much larger scale on several other
mailing lists today. It is a matter of employing productivity aids of
types to enable this to occur on a thread basis for instance. Voting booths
with and E-Mail interface, for instance would be useful. There are many
tools to increase and improve the use of a mailing list for these and other
purposes. Our [INEGRoup's] mailing list has over 100k participants
for instance. Works very nicely and very efficiently. >;)
> So, in summary, the GA is not just the GA-mailing list, and we need to
> discuss about a proposal for membership.
Agreed and discussion on membership and about membership should
be an ongoing discussion so as to improve, and increase the DNSO
> Last but not least, if I were ICANN I would pay a lot of attention to
> what is happening to the GA/DNSO, in order to avoid on the At-Large
> membership the mistakes of the GA/DNSO.
Good point, and agreed. Most especially the mistakes of SELECTIVE
CENSORSHIP are very important and of VOTE FRAUD as well.
It is already obvious that ICANN has already made a mistake by wishing
to limit it's membership to 5000 members. This and Michael Froomkin pointed
out yesterday, is a absolute violation of it's own bylaws and the White
When and organization or an individual recognizes their mistakes the right
proper thing to do is correct that mistake before moving forward so as to
limit future damage.
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208