[ga] [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

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

Reposted from [ga-rules] from 2nd June 2001.

From: Patrick Corliss <patrick@quad.net.au>
To: Jefsey Morfin, wanadoo <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: [ga-rules] <ga-rules@dnso.org>
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 12:33:48 +1000
Subject: [ga-rules] Mailing List Management

My overall view is to have "virtual" constituencies.  In other words all of
the ISPs will have one mailing list.  The individuals another.  Businesses a
third.  And so on.  With working groups on particular issues like the
Alternate Roots, Trade Marks and Registration Systems.

The whole idea needs to be better defined and I'd like to see the issue
discussed on the GA-RULES mailing list.  Some members, particularly William
X. Walsh, Jeff Williams and Dassa Lynch have their own views which I'd like
to see canvassed.  Of course, I am assuming that people have a genuine
interest in such a discussion.

As it is now, we have three dedicated mailing lists.   UDRP which is really
Trade Mark interests.  Alternate Roots which could become a constituency.
Systems which is really Registrars and Registration Service Providers.
Let's call those Working Groups (WGs) or Special Interest Groups (SIGs) with
dedicated people.

Those people understand the issues relevant to their subject.  The main GA
list is really a "control" program of everybody.  The GENERAL assembly then
decides that an issue is worth discussing.  They can create a "terms of
reference" and refer the matter to one of the WGs.  A good example is WHOIS
privacy in relation to the European Community.

The WG or SIG can come up with a policy recommendation and refer it back to
the main membership for a vote.  Does that make sense or not?

Let's say the WHOIS issue is handled by GA-SYS.  You could call them WG-SYS
if you prefer.  They come up with a recommendation on the Administration
Contact.  Simple enough.  Let's say the recommendation is "that the
Administration Contact is the agent of the Registrant and the Registrant may
redelegate that authority at any time".  Fine.  We have a vote.  Adopted.
Passed to ICANN as having consensus among all the participants.

So the WG Chair is the "input-output control" of the Group.  Just like any
other Chair of a sub-committee, investigative study or panel.  It's what we
do in Australia.  There's a Terms of Reference (INPUT) and a report
(OUTPUT).  Meanwhile the WG just chugs along doing its stuff.

William X. Walsh sees such a system as open to capture and I agree that
there is a danger of that.  There are two arguments against that view:

First that everybody who is interested in a subject can join a working group
of their choice.  One person may not be particularly interested in, say,
UDRP or WHOIS systems.  They can choose not to participate.

Second that everything must come back to the GA list for final approval.  If
that list was kept light (as a control program) then you could require
everybody to join it i.e. set up the system so that everybody who joins a
sublist must be a member of the main GA list.

The big advantage of dedicated Special Interest Groups is that you WILL get
some work done.

Regards
Patrick Corliss

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



--
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