[ga] 3,328 comments added to this list

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Joanna

On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:34:43 -0400, you wrote:
Subject: [ga-review] 3,328 comments added to this list


> Part of the original DNSO Review process included discussions on
structural
> reform of both DNSO and ICANN.
> http://www.dnso.org/wgroups/wg-review/Arc02/maillist.html

As you know I was not a member of WG-Review but it is clear to me that there
are very few subscribers currently.  I believe that another list was set up
elsewhere and this was done because of friction between the members.  Of
course I was not involved.  I have no idea of the current status of the
"review" or whether the matter should be progressed.

My concern is simply that mailing lists should be operating effectively.  If
the GA-REVIEW mailing list was intended to deal with restructuring ICANN
then I should have been informed so that I would not post requests to
members to use GA-ICANN.  Having made such a post, it would be a simple
matter to advise me privately so I could correct my error.

It is my view that too many people on these lists let their own personal
likes and phobias influence their professional behaviour.  I expect
reasonable courtesy and co-operation when I am merely trying to do my job
advising people of the appropriate list to use.

Could you please, therefore clarify the position for me in clear and
unequivocal terms?  Can you advise what were the terms of reference for the
WG-REVIEW?  To what extent did it complete its task when it was closed down
by the Names Council?  Was any further work performed outside this forum
and, if so, with what result?  Is there a "due" date for completion?

I am particularly interested in two fundamental issues:

(1)  Viability of the List.  Why have the 100 or so members of the origibal
WG-REVIEW not joined this GA-REVIEW mailing list?  Is it because the work is
completed?  Are they likely to sign up anytime soon?  In other words, will
the list be useful? and viable?

(2)   Boundary or Scope.  I'll use that term for now -- I may think of a
better one later.  What I need to know is to what extent the lists overlap.
If the principal objective of the Review is looking at the structure of the
DNSO then wider issues, such as Supporting Organisations, are outside its
scope.  We need to establish these boundaries very precisely.

In other words, I don't care very much how the work is allocated between
lists but (1) whether the list is viable and (2) what purpose the list will
serve.  Given the latest ccTLD moves, list members may very well need to
revise the terms of reference of more than one list.

Finally, I consider each list as a Working Group.  Whether it is or not, it
needs to have a WG-Chair or Co-ordinator of some sort.  Perhaps you will
consider how this might be arranged.

It occurred to me that your interest in WHOIS and registration systems might
have inclined you towards becoming a Chair of the GA-SYS mailing list rather
than GA-REVIEW.  The important point is to make sure that each list is
properly managed by the most suitable people.

Of course I will post this to the [ga] list until these issues are properly
settled.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html