[ga] Re: InternetStakeholders.com

["babybows.com" <webmaster@babybows.com>]

Sotiris,

As you well know, I have merely responded to questions posed to me by Joanna
Lane (cited below), regarding the website internetstakeholders.com, that
you, the Chair of the Review WG, have helped to create.  You are a founding
member of this website and are aware of all of the activities of your
co-founding associates.  You have yourself posted nine times to this list; I
haven't even posted once, nor have I taken part in any of the recent
activities of your steering committee.  Distancing yourself from your own
efforts and describing this as a "rogue mailing list" after you, in a huff
(following an argument with Joanna), decided to resign as Chair of the ML
that you now disavow is disingenuous at best.

You have chosen to call this a GA website and to attack me personally.
Fine.  It goes with the territory.  I have no problems with the
recommendations that I put forth, nor would I ever wish to discourage the
participation of the public in the ICANN process.  Nor do I have problems
recommending that the GA website be improved.  Your own website clearly
states:

This site does not belong to ICANN (The Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers) but is concerned with the work of WG-Review (a Working
Group) which has been set up by the NC (Names Council) to review DNSO (the
Domain Name Supporting Organizations).

I didn't set up your mailing list.  I've been working on getting mailing
lists set up for the GA (I had even included the recommendation for a DNSO
Review mailing list in the eight lists that I put forward).  Your comments
are ill-advised and serve no agenda other than pointless vindictiveness.

-----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2001 11:38 PM
To: webmaster@babybows.com
Subject: InternetStakeholders.com

Hi Danny,
I'm pleased to see you moving a solid agenda forward. Well done you!

A matter of concern:-
There is a move afoot to establish a seperate wg-review ML through
InternetStakeholders.com. In fact, one has been created today on Kendall's
initiative, and is ready to be announced, but I am holding this back, hoping
the official DNSO-Review ML will be approved, and somewhat encouraged in
that respect by Philip Shepard's response to you earlier today.

Now, some members are anxious not to lose momentum and wishing to retain the
integrity of the original group, want to launch this iniative straight away.
At the same time, there is a long-term game plan to turn
InternetStakeholders into a real novice website, to draw in members to the
GA. This would also be a good thing.

Impossible questions:-

1) Would it be a good idea to launch our new ML, however
temporary?

2) Would there be greater value in (leaving WG-Review participants on the
sideline for the short-term future), moving InternetStakeholders into the
arena of an intake website/ induction course for new GA participants?

Maybe the answer lies in:_

3) How long (realistically) it will take for the NC to approve a new ML for
Review.

4) Whether you can foresee any future role for InternetStakeholders.com, and
if so, what this would be.

Regards,
Joanna



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