<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] RE: IPC on ALAC
I gleaned from Danny's post below that something was wrong with the IPC
members list archive. I am not sure what it was but it has now been fixed,
and the postings since July now appear at
http://ipc.songbird.com/members-archive/. I do not think the use of this
list constitutes much of a metric for representativeness but in any case it
is now functioning again. Thanks to Danny for bringing this glitch to our
attention.
-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:55 PM
To: metalitz@iipa.com; ga@dnso.org
Cc: jo-uk@rcn.com; apisan@servidor.unam.mx
Subject: Re: IPC on ALAC
Hello Steve,
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the "metric for representativeness"
along with other matters. As I review the mailing list archives for
different At-Large structures over the course of the last six months, I note
thousands upon thousands of postings by hundreds and hundreds of active
involved members. On the other hand, when I review the mailing list
archives
of the IPC, I see only 16 postings in total by only eight members in the
last
half year.
Clearly though, list discussion is only one metric by which the viability of
a group may be measured, and I am pleased to note that while your list
traffic is inordinately low (not even one post in the last two and a half
months), you somehow manage to convey the position of your entire
constituency without the benefit of any such discussion. It must be a
tribute to your excellent leadership to be able to issue these position
papers without any recourse to the actual opinions or vote of your
membership.
But before we begin establishing threshhold metrics designed to keep others
from participating, why don't we first review whether your own organization
even deserves to remain a part of the GNSO. I see little value in your
continued participation while other interest groups (ranging from privacy
coalitions to individual domain name holders) are denied an equal
opportunity
to be a member of the Council. Why should policy decisions regarding the
DNS
continue to be skewed by intellectual property owners when those in
opposition to your interests should rightfully command an equal voice and
counterbalance in the process?
It would be far better to remove your constituency from the process until
such time as parity and balance is achieved, wouldn't you agree? After all,
you do support the notion of fairness, don't you?
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|