[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] So far, 28 poll answers logged
The reason the WGs have their own lists can be summed up by the
realization that a small room can hold only so many people. It has a
capacity. Just like an ethernet, It will only support a certain amount of
bandwidth and then come to a halt due to collisions. A token ring will
slowly degrade because of it's orderly process.
A mail list can only support so much bandwidth in the form of cacophany. I
use the term cacophany not to merely include disruptive behaviour, but the
realization that a forum can contain only so much traffic before the
insignificant parts for any one person become too much to wade through in
order to get to their "particular substance".
That is why we typically delegate tasks out to various lists, like -
discuss, and tech, and legal, and devel. Atty's would have to wade through
miles of change logs and code if a devel list were merged with a legal
The problem here, is one of structure, and appropriate divestiture of the
topics. It's really comical actually. Here we stand. All in one room,
talking at the same time about different things.
Might I respectfully suggest of our Chair that he consider breaking us out
into committees by task or topic. Mr. Gaetano is the one person who can
bring that order. Our lists don't have to be hosted by DSNO.org Several of
us here would be more than happy to provide the facilities merely by being
Committees bring focus to a central point. Remember in the eighties when
we started thinking in terms of distributed computing? many of us in that
ivory tower called the "Machine Room" wanted no part of it. PCs forced a
distrubuted environment, but the big fear was disruption and mass
Most people didn't figure that the PC would just reinforce the notion of
centralization of databases and files.
In other words, How could someone possibly (no sarcasm please) disrupt 20
mailing lists, with the point people of those lists coordination on a
central committee (probably it's own list apart from this one) where the
work hashed out would come to fruition.
Not only is ICANN banking on the assumption that we won't or can't do
that, but that is also the very model they have adopted to accomplish
their tasks - and it has only strengthened them.
Or, we could just keep shouting out our ideas right here in any order that
On Thu, 20 Jan 2000, Michael Sondow wrote:
> Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > Those interested in the full truth of what happened in the first Steering
> > Committee of the IDNO, the trigger event, provided by Joe Baptista, the
> > attempted capture of the SC by William Walsh and "Bradley Thornton" before
> > an agreed structure was in place and their vendetta of slander when the
> > majority refused to roll over, can find it all in the idno archives.
> > http://list.idno.org/archives
> > Just as ICANN can learn lessons for its General Membership structure from
> > what is happening here, history of what happened in the IDNO is already
> > repeating itself.
> The lesson to be learned here, I think, Joop, is that mailing lists
> are not, after all, a useful way of accomplishing good things. There
> will always be vengeful, unhappy people like Walsh and agents
> provocateurs like Crispin and Crocker to disrupt them.
> Three or four people of like mind who trust each other can
> accomplish more, by telephone, than this rag-tag of little Caesars
> and neurotic sociopaths. That is what the ICANN Board realizes, and
> why they have so far beaten us.
> Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
> Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927
--Bradley D. Thornton MCSE; MCT.-- , bootstrap of
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.idno.org (or direct:)