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

["Gendron, Michael (MIS)" <GendronM@mail.ccsu.edu>]

To clarify:

I am not sure lists are the way to get the job done.  It seems that lists
give the ability to claim a bottoms-up consensus process....in other words
just the mere creation of a list gives the appearance that we are obtaining
the constituency's opinion....we all know that could not be further from the
truth.  So some suggestions:

1) Reduce the number of lists and/or move to a different discussion vehicle.
Web based discussion board are one alternative.  I know that in my academic
discipline  we tend to shy away from lists to carry discussions....epically
multiple discussions (different topics within the same area) concurrently.
Lists result in your inbox getting a lot of traffic that is not necessarily
threaded on the fly - yes, you can get threaded archives, but that is
largely useless for participation in real-time. 
2) I appreciated what Eric Dierker wrote: "We have to stop running this like
a chat room and start running it like a board room."  We need to act more
busiless-like, not to the exclusion of people uncomfortable with that
setting, but so their voice can be hear more clearly.  We need to have
decorum, professionalism, and rules of order.  That way everyone gets heard
- fairly.  I would suggest that "joe-Q-public," many governmental officials,
and perhaps members of ICANN's board disregard our lists as nothing more
than chat rooms.  The appearance of being a chat room might allow some to
marginalize our opinions and carry forward their own agenda's.  We may be
shooting ourselves in the foot.  It we want to be taken seriously, we need
to act deliberately.  That includes stopping the personal flaming and
diatribes.
3) The lists are cluttered by editorial comments that are not substantive or
are off topic.  As professionals we need to respect each others time and
efforts by not posting off topic, flaming, personal agenda, or other
inappropriate messages.  It takes time to read all of them.  We need to
think before we write...I know that I have adopted a policy of saving any
*really important emails* for at least 8 hours before I send them -
rereading them - then sending them.  This allows me to think before acting.
The mere fact that email is readily available and "free" can make one act
impulsively - which is often the wrong move.  A good friend tells me that
"those things that are  [time] important are often not critical, and those
things that are critical are often not [time] important" [emphasis added].

Just my thoughts....if you disagree please be gentle :)



Michael Gendron.. Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Business
CCSU

 -----Original Message-----
From: 	Patrick Corliss [mailto:patrick@quad.net.au] 
Sent:	Monday, June 11, 2001 1:56 AM
To:	Gendron, Michael (MIS)
Cc:	[ga]
Subject:	Re: [ga] GA-REVIEW & Other Mailing Lists

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
[ga-announce]        encourage the DNSO Secretariat to use it or lose it
[ga-icann]                mainstream issue.  scrap the list.
[ga-rules]                 like an O/S it essential to separate levels of
debate.
[ga-abuse]               replace with a website-based complaints system
[ga-roots]                it's the most popular.  let it run.
[ga-udrp]                 special interest group must be interested
[ga-org]                   -- ditto --
[ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
systems

In other words, like an operating system the separate lists must represent
different levels of the hierarchy.  The "rules" list is needed for internal
housekeeping.

Special purpose lists are like subroutines -- you use them when you need
them.

> 2) make the lists web based and thus threaded

I'm not sure of your meaning here.  Archives can be threaded.

> 3) subscribers use outlook (express) and setup rules to move the messages
> from the their inbox to a folder for that list (this is what I do)

Me too but that's not the real problem.  There are two issues.  One is the
inherent problem of any classification system -- allocation (or "scope").
If ICANN issues a policy on Roots, does that go to [ga] or [ga-icann] or
[ga-roots] ?

The second problem is human error.  For example, one person may write a post
which provokes a new train of thought (or "thread") but this will inevitably
continue on the same list.  In fact people will need to be more disciplined
in the postings.

> 4) any number of other ways to solve this problem.

Basically the set of lists must be intuitive.  That's not the case at
present -- they are not even coherent let alone intuitive.

> FYI, I just re-subscribed to this list and others.  Two main reason I
> unsubscribe: 1) the amount of critical, non-productive email, and 2) the
> duplication/difficulty following the lists.

If you see the sublists as issue-driven, the work will be productive.  An
intuitive system will allow subscribers to follow what's going on without
difficulty.  For that you must have sub-list Chairs and terms of reference
(not just an agenda).

As Eric Dierker wrote:

> We have to stop running this like a chat room and start running
> it like a board room.

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


--
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