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

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Hello David,

on 6/11/01 2:35 AM, david@farrar.com at david@farrar.com wrote:
>> [ga-sys]                   meant for detailed issues like registration
>> systems
> 
> Has it had any traffic?  Could be chopped IMO.
> 
> DPF

With the greatest respect, it would be helpful if you would actually check
this list before disseminating a value judgement which amounts to summary
execution. 

Since its formation, the GA-SYS list has largely focused on Privacy issues
in relation to the EU laws and WHOIS databases. To say that this is a matter
of deep concern to Individual Domain name Holders and the public at large,
(whose interests are not currently represented elsewhere is the DNSO
process), is an understatement.

For your information, the NC is currently conducting a survey on WHOIS,
which is one of the few things that they have actually asked us to do, and
to that end, they have issued a lengthy questionaire that requires a
response by the deadline of July 31st.

This is the GA's opportunity to have a say in how the Whois is to be
constituted and run, and should we fail to respond, either individually, or
collectively, we cannot complain about the result. Those that belong to the
GA-SYS list recognize the importance of this issue to individuals, even
though they themselves may represent other interests. They are to be
commended, not trashed.

The number of posts to the GA-SYS lists is few compared to the GA main list,
and that is to its credit. Members only post when they have something
meaningful to say, which is the way it should be. You will see direct
cross-constituency dialogue developing there between individuals, such as
myself, technicians such as Roeland Meyer, and policy advocates, such as
Ross Nadar of Tucows, to mention a few.

As a British citizen, I find myself advocating an EU position, pitted
against the US position, represented by William Walsh. This has certainly
increased my understanding about how US citizens have become conditioned to
accept intrusion into their private lives, something that is not accepted so
readily by the rest of the world. More research is needed to establish a
worldwide consensus position. It's healthy stuff.

I would also mention that this is the only list that, to my knowledge, has
produced any documents at all since its creation. Several papers have gone
through a first draft stage, for further consideration by the full
membership, under the working title of Freedoms, part 1,2 and 3. In
addition, a summary of discussions on the list was recently posted, for
those interested in clarifying the issues and furthering/ joining the
debate.

I can accept that you have no particular interest in all of the above, but I
cannot accept that you would kill a list that has added more value to the GA
in past weeks than possibly any other, and is producing quality
cross-constituency dialogue, with no noise.

Finally, it has not passed me by that your lack of concern and understanding
about these issues are voiced at a time when your name has been put forward
as a potential candidate to represent the best interests of individuals to
the NC. For this reason, I regret that I cannot support your nomination for
the position.

Regards,
Joanna Lane
http://www.internetstakeholders.com

--
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