Re: [ga] Repost: InternetStakeholders.com

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Actually, Sotiris, it was a courtesy, IMO.  "Unsubscribe" is really 
simple for anyone who does not wish to participate.  According to those 
who object to that list, there should have been no announcement on this 
list and they should not have been subscribed to the other list.  In other 
words they should not know about it, nor should anyone else.  

This is precisely why my last post was made.  If one does not agree 
with the established program, one should just be silent and let things go 
the way they have been since the creation of ICANN.  Different thinking, 
methods, changes are not welcome.  

I disagree with you on this point (the list), Sotiris.  Since it was 
established due to the closing of WG list, subscribing those members 
to the continuation list was not a breach and those who don't want it 
should simply unsubscribe or ask the list manager to do it for them.  It's 
not a big deal.  It is also not as though all GA members were subsribed 
to it.

Leah



On 24 Apr 2001, at 23:10, Sotiris wrote:

> At the risk of being banned for excessive posts...
> 
> L Gallegos wrote:
> 
> > This is my personal opinion.
> > <snip>
> > Why would members of the GA object to this if the DNSO is not going
> > to provide that forum?  In addition, why would it be out of order to invite
> > people from this list (as the original invitees) to join the newly provided
> > forum?  It is not an abuse of the list to do so, IMO.  <snip>
> 
> Leah,
> 
> If the original members were *invited*, no problem... but they were *not* invited.
> They were signed up to a yahoogroup without their knowledge or approval.  This is
> technically a breach of privacy, and that is why it's out of order.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Sotiris Sotiropoulos
> 


--
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