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

["William S. Lovell" <wsl@cerebalaw.com>]

Joanna Lane wrote:

> 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

Excellent response by Joanna. In the first place, measuring the value of
a list by the amount of traffic it has is an extraordinary misperception of
the process.  Take out the flame wars from GA and how much real
traffic is there? (Lately, I'll grant it has been getting much better -- even
the formation of a little clique comprising those whom I put into the
class of Internet radicals is better than nothing but that familiar burning
smell.)

As to privacy, I have long preferred the EU standard myself.  And it was
France that got the "right of attribution" and similar terms into the copyright
law, which I also highly favor.  William X. Walsh is the ultimate economic
Darwinian -- "may the strong overpower the weak, by almost any means
available," and on such issues we have and will no doubt continue to cross
swords.

Bill Lovell

> 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
>

--
Any terms or acronyms above that are not familiar
to the reader may possibly be explained at:
ACRONYM FINDER: http://www.acronymfinder.com/;
"WHAT IS": http://whatis.techtarget.com/
GLOSSARY: http://www.icann.org/general/glossary.htm


--
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