[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ifwp] Re: Monterrey Report




It's hard to focus on DNSO issues while the
rules under which ICANN will operate are still 
undecided.  This may be the cause of the light 
traffic on the discuss@dnso.org list.

Jay.


At 09:48 AM 11/24/98 , Michael Sondow wrote:
>Joop Teernstra a écrit:
>> 
>> At 18:35 23/11/98 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
>> 
>> >(BTW, these lists have got me bamboozled. This is the first message I've
>> >gotten on any of them
>> >for quite a while, except for kent's messages about the meeting notes.
>> >Anyway, wouldn't it be better to post to the "participants" list? There,
>> >at least, there's some chance of catching a few people who were at the
>> >meeting. This "discuss" list hasn't kicked off at all, it seems to me.)
>> >
>> Michael and all,
>> 
>> I am surprised to hear you make such a proposal just after lauding the
>> openness of the DNSO.
>> Are you suggesting that the "participants" are not bothering to follow the
>> open list and congregate only on the closed "participants" list?
>
>
>You're reading into this more than was intended. The DNSO has created a
>number
>of different lists, not for secrecy or discrimination but in order to
>keep some
>order between the different tasks. This separation of chores was one of
>the things
>that made the Monterrey meeting work, and the lack of such definition is
>what
>has kept the IFWP from functioning as an effective organization.
>
>Anyway, as I say, the DNSO has created different lists for different
>tasks, but these tasks
>haven't all gotten rolling yet, and furthermore there aren't enough
>volunteers yet to
>administer the lists. It's possible that the DNSO has been a little too
>ambitious with all
>its lists, but better to err on the side of too much than too little.
>
>In any case, the accent in the DNSO is more on work than blah-blah. The
>only IFWP-
>style blah-blah list is the discuss list, and nothing much is happening
>on it because 
>people don't have a lot more time left for blah-blah. Just as well,
>IMHO.
>
>BTW, is it common practice for a person who's subscribed to two lists to
>take messages
>from one of them and re-post them to the other, like you did with my
>message to the DNSO
>list? I should have thought that was a breach of netiquette.
>
>__________________________________________________
>To receive the digest version instead, send a
>blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
>subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
>unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
>Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
>___END____________________________________________
>