Re: 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." <DomainsProphetPartners.com> 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.ProphetPart
ners.com
> http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jeff Williams"
> To: "Prophet Partners Inc."
> Cc:
> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:53 AM
> Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to design a
better RAA
>
>
> > Ted and all,
> >
> > Thank you for your kindly reply. However if anyone
cannot actively
> > participate on any WG list or sublist than it is
not open and
> transparent,
> > ergo anyone must be able to post as well as read.
All 134,000
> members
> > of our organization can actively participate in
any topic we may
> have
> ongoing
> > and their is little disruption although very few
actively on a
> regular
> basis.
> > However
> > I also understand your point, yet I believe it is
overstated and
> premature.
> > BTW,
> > whom is the "we" you mentioned?
> >
> > In any event Dr. Dierker is the chair and this is
his decision to
> make
> > regarding whom may actively participate on any WG
list or sublist.
> In
> > any event if any WG list or sublist as to whom may
and whom may
> > not actively participate ergo selective censorship
the results will
> be
> > limited and/or reflect those which are allowed to
actively
> participate.
> > Hence said results may or may not end up with a
better product, in
> > this case a better RAA...
> >
> > My participation will be limited and be centered
in favor of
> > registrants vs registrars/registries. I am also of
the belief that
> > data escrow is entragel to a better RAA as is
security, control,
> > and access to any individual registrants
registration data records.
> >
> > Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeff,
> > >
> > > We think that it would be fair to say that as
a group, the
> participants
> of
> > > this mailing list all want to build a solid
foundation, from which
> we
> can
> > > express our collective opinions and bring
long overdue reform to
> flawed
> > > ICANN policies.
> > >
> > > What we proposed earlier is completely open
and transparent.
> Anybody can
> > > read anything they want. In the interest of
efficiency, only WG
> participants
> > > should post to the WG. Other people with an
interest can post
> their
> opinions
> > > to the WG suggestions / comments forum.
Nothing would get
> accomplished
> if
> > > every person expressed their opinion through
the WG. Could you
> imagine a
> > > public company holding weekly meetings at
which every stockholder
> expressed
> > > their opinions? As the spokesman for the
INEGroup, could you
> imagine the
> > > ensuing chaos if every one of your 134,000
members had their word?
>
> > > Certainly, you should be able to recognize
the importance of
> hierarchy
> and
> > > structure. With that being said, the number
of participants in
> each WG
> is
> > > fluid and individuals expressing the desire
to join a particular
> WG can
> be
> > > added as necessary.
> > >
> > > The WG forums should be viewed as the
detailed discussions for
> each
> issue,
> > > while the GA list would include a summary of
the WG findings. As
> the WG
> > > forums would be categorized by topic and
organized by date, it
> should be
> > > much easier for people to follow and provide
input on their
> particular
> areas
> > > of interest. The GA mailing list may seem
manageable in its
> present
> state
> > > with an average of 10-15 messages per day.
However, we would like
> to
> > > eventually see increased participation from a
wider segment of the
>
> Internet
> > > community. In our opinion, getting broad
based support from the
> Internet
> > > community is the critical variable that will
make our mission
> successful.
> > >
> > > Contrary to what you may believe, many people
prefer to drop into
> > > discussions at forums at their own leisure
and not get bombarded
> by
> emails
> > > throughout the day. Although, the antiquated
mailing list does
> work, we
> > > believe that it is much less effective than a
modernized online
> forum.
> Let
> > > advances in technology help us move forward.
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > > Ted
> > > Prophet Partners Inc.
> > > http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
> > > http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Jeff Williams"
> > > To: "Prophet Partners Inc."
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 12:39 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working group to
design a better RAA
> > >
> > > > Ted, Chris and all,
> > > >
> > > > Ted and Chris, I disagree with both of
your possitions here.
> > > >
> > > > First, Ted we need to be open and
transparent and allow anyone
> > > > whom is willing be able to actively
participate in any and all
> WG's
> > > > the chair determines lest we fall victim
to being like ICANN
> which is
> > > > and has proven to be unhealthy.
> > > >
> > > > Second Ted, part of your list below
seems to make it even harder
>
> > > > and more confusing for non WG members to
follow as they would
> > > > have two different places to look and
review in order to follow
> > > > adequately.
> > > >
> > > > Third Chris, mailing list style is not
out dated. Blog style is
> > > becoming
> > > > a bad idea of late given fairly recent
big media exposure to
> blog's
> > > negative
> > > > aspects.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Prophet Partners Inc. wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Chris,
> > > > >
> > > > > We're in agreement with you that WG
forums hosted elsewhere
> would be
> a
> > > > > better alternative. Doing so would
address the following:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Limit postings in each WG only
to WG participants
> > > > > 2) Provide full transparency by
allowing non-WG participants
> to
> follow
> > > > > developments in each WG
> > > > > 3) Encourage people intimidated by
the GA mailing list to
> participate in
> > > the
> > > > > forums - perhaps through a separate
suggestions forum for each
> WG
> > > > > 4) Findings of each WG are then
posted to the GA list
> > > > > 5) Prevent censorship by ICANN - as
witnessed by the recent
> deletion
> of
> > > the
> > > > > registry / registrar lists after
the Registerfly meltdown
> > > > > 6) Build a mailing list that could
be tapped into for future
> grass
> roots
> > > > > campaigns - perhaps by getting
people to opt-in to a monthly
> newsletter
> > > > > 7) Website traffic and referrer
stats would provide insight
> into
> what
> > > ICANN
> > > > > topics are of interest to the
general public
> > > > >
> > > > > Sincerely,
> > > > > Ted
> > > > > Prophet Partners Inc.
> > > > > http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
> > > > > http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "kidsearch"
> > > > > To: "Jeff Williams" ;
"GA"
>
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 9:29
AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA] working
group to design a better
> RAA
> > > > >
> > > > > > A WG is formed to work on a
specific topic. trying to
> discuss ten
> > > things
> > > > > at
> > > > > > once is an obvious
distraction. it would still be done
> mailing
> list
> > > style
> > > > > > even though that is totally
outdated and not user-friendly
> for
> most
> > > users.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Forums would still be a better
option and more people are
> familiar
> > > with
> > > > > > forums and how to use them and
they find it easier because
> it is
> > > separated
> > > > > > into different threads.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The mailing list is archaic
and only of use to a few people
> who
> can
> > > follow
> > > > > > it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, since it seems no one
involved in Internet
> governance can
> > > seem to
> > > > > > grasp the whole forum concept
we will always use a mailing
> list
> and
> > > will
> > > > > > always have limited
participation, which I believe is the
> real
> goal of
> > > > > > proponents of this method of
communication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having at least a separate
mailing list for a WG until it
> achieves
> > > it's
> > > > > goal
> > > > > > is necessary in my opnion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
> > > > > > http://www.arti
clecontentprovider.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Jeff
Williams"
> > > > > > To: "GA"
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007
5:40 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [RAA]
working group to design a better
> RAA
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joop and all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What distractions, and
distractions from what exactly are
> you
> > > > > > > referring to for a list
based WG, Joop?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [RAA] is in the subject
line, and this is also what Dr.
> Dierker
> had
> > > > > > > already suggested.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > CC'ing is not a bad thing
depending on if whom is being
> CC'ed is
> > > > > > > a list member or not. If
not CC'ing is for informational
> purposes
> > > > > > > and is beneficial as
such. Otherwise CC'ing is overly
> redundant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Joop Teernstra wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> At 12:28 a.m.
10/04/2007, kidsearch wrote:
> > > > > > >> >Eric, there is a
problem I'd like to address. Whenever a
> WG is
> > > formed
> > > > > > >> but
> > > > > > >> >still posts to
the list, even with the subject line
> changed,
> > > people
> > > > > > >> not
> > > > > > >> >involved in the
WG continue to comment. I understand the
> need
> for
> > > > > > >> >transparency and
agree with anything that makes things
> more
> > > > > > >> transparent.
> > > > > > >> >However, I run a
nonprofit org and whenever a committee
> is
> formed
> > > to
> > > > > > >> >discuss a
particular topic, they do it among themselves
> and
> take
> > > > > > >> minutes
> > > > > > >> >so others can
read what went on in those discussions.
> Then the
> > > > > > >> committee
> > > > > > >> >reports their
findings back to the board. it's
> efficient.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> >I think a WG
should have their own mailing list and
> archives
> that
> > > > > > >> anyone
> > > > > > >> >can read. If you
really want to get something done, then
> a WG
> has
> > > to
> > > > > > >> be
> > > > > > >> >formed and
allowed to get their work done, then report
> their
> > > findings
> > > > > > >> back
> > > > > > >> >to the list.
That's my opinion.
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Eric,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I agree with Chris.
We can report weekly or fortnightly
> to the
> > > list,
> > > > > > >> but in
> > > > > > >> order to get work
done, we need to be free from
> distractions
> and
> > > > > > >> possible
> > > > > > >> trolling.
> > > > > > >> As long as we have to
operate by cc-ing, I would like to
> ask WG
> > > > > > >> participants to put
[RAA] in the subject line.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -joop-
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > > > > > > Registered Email addr
with the USPS
> > > > > > > Contact Number:
214-244-4827
> > > >
> > > > 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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > > > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > > > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > 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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
> > Registered Email addr with the USPS
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>

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 jwkckid1ix.netcom.com
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

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.

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

Sincerely,
Ted
Prophet Partners Inc.
http://www.ProphetPart
ners.com
http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1ix.netcom.com>
To: "Hugh Dierker" <hdierker2204yahoo.com>
Cc: "Prophet Partners Inc." <DomainsProphetPartners.com>;
<gagnso.icann.org>
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." <DomainsProphetPartners.com> 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.ProphetPart
ners.com
> > http://www.Premiu
m-Domain-Names.com