Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

[david@farrar.com]

Patrick C wrote:
> Hi Michael
> 
> > IMHO, I agree with Marilyn....we need to avoid being critical.  We do also
> > need to look at the problem of multiple lists.  There are several
> solutions.
> >
> > 1) reduce the number of lists
> 
> Agreed -- eleven is too many.  The problem is the seven sublists should be
> reduced to five or less.  I'd suggest the following:
> 
> [ga] and [ga-full]    leave these alone unless there's a formal vote

Agreed.  They are really the same list just one lightly moderated.  No-one will 
be a member fo both - it is one or the other.

> [ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it

Need to keep for elections etc.

> [ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.

Agreed - will always be discussed on main GA

> [ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
> debate.

I think it is useful that the main GA list doesn't get flooded with process 
discussions so agree.

> [ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system

Up to those who use it.  This isn't a public list so not so impt.

> [ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.

Agreed.

> [ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested

Hopefully it will become more relevant once WIPO submits its formal 
recommendations.  

> [ga-org]                   -- ditto --

The NC has specifically asked us to start the ball rolling here so great 
opportunity for us to perform.

> [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
> systems

Has it had any traffic?  Could be chopped IMO.
 
DPF


--
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