[ga] RE: IPC on ALAC

[Steve Metalitz <metalitz@iipa.com>]

I gleaned from Danny's post below that something was wrong with the IPC
members list archive.  I am not sure what it was but it has now been fixed,
and the postings since July now appear at
http://ipc.songbird.com/members-archive/.  I do not think the use of this
list constitutes much of a metric for representativeness but in any case it
is now functioning again.  Thanks to Danny for bringing this glitch to our
attention.   

-----Original Message-----
From: DannyYounger@cs.com [mailto:DannyYounger@cs.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 12:55 PM
To: metalitz@iipa.com; ga@dnso.org
Cc: jo-uk@rcn.com; apisan@servidor.unam.mx
Subject: Re: IPC on ALAC


Hello Steve,

I welcome the opportunity to discuss the "metric for representativeness" 
along with other matters.  As I review the mailing list archives for 
different At-Large structures over the course of the last six months, I note

thousands upon thousands of postings by hundreds and hundreds of active 
involved members.  On the other hand, when I review the mailing list
archives 
of the IPC, I see only 16 postings in total by only eight members in the
last 
half year.  

Clearly though, list discussion is only one metric by which the viability of

a group may be measured, and I am pleased to note that while your list 
traffic is inordinately low (not even one post in the last two and a half 
months), you somehow manage to convey the position of your entire 
constituency without the benefit of any such discussion.  It must be a 
tribute to your excellent leadership to be able to issue these position 
papers without any recourse to the actual opinions or vote of your
membership.

But before we begin establishing threshhold metrics designed to keep others 
from participating, why don't we first review whether your own organization 
even deserves to remain a part of the GNSO.  I see little value in your 
continued participation while other interest groups (ranging from privacy 
coalitions to individual domain name holders) are denied an equal
opportunity 
to be a member of the Council.  Why should policy decisions regarding the
DNS 
continue to be skewed by intellectual property owners when those in 
opposition to your interests should rightfully command an equal voice and 
counterbalance in the process?  

It would be far better to remove your constituency from the process until 
such time as parity and balance is achieved, wouldn't you agree?  After all,

you do support the notion of fairness, don't you?






--
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