[ga-rules] Using the Lists - Who Can Tell ?

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

On Wed, 27 Jun 2001 08:44:03 -0700, William X. Walsh wrote:
Subject: [ga] Registrar acquisition and merger policy

> I'm sure our alt-chair will tell us to take this to ga-sys, or is it
> ga-icann?  :)  Who can tell?

Hi William

The [ga-sys] list was set up to discuss registration systems such as whois,
unreleased domain names and domain name hijackings.  These are issues that
have been very popular on the old Verisign domain-policy list.  They are
also issues which reflect a lack of enforcement by ICANN rather than
"mainstream" GA policy development.  This is your field of expertise.

The [ga-icann] list was initially aimed at the relationship which the GA has
with the outside world.  It was designed to cover outreach, at large,
constituencies and supporting organisations.  Most of these issues relate to
ICANN and this caused the name change to [ga-icann].

However, I have argued, without sucess, that there are too many sublists.  I
am 100% in favour of [ga-rules] and [ga-roots] as these are very worthwhile.
The [ga-icann] list could be scrapped in favour of using the main GA list.
I'd prefer to wait and see what happens with [ga-sys].

Meanwhile, I expect list subscribers to use the lists they feel comfortable
with.  I would only ask that we use [ga-rules] for list rules and protocols
in order to avoid overwhelming substantive and genuine policy debate with
distracting procedural minutiae and senseless argumentation.

I genuinely feel that most members agree with using [ga-rules] for list
rules.  Those who don't need only gain sufficient support for their agenda.
I don't see any evidence of that happening.

Best 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