[atlarge-discuss] Re: [ga] RE: IPC on ALAC

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Steve and all assembly members, IPC members, stakeholders or other interested
parties,

  Thank you Steve for this follow-up.  Glad that the archive on Kents
web site is now fixed.  What is concerning is why such a problem without
adequate hot backup was not available?  And, how such a problem was
noticed by Danny and not one of the IPC members of the webmaster?
Such and occurrence does not bode well for technical competence or
stability.

  I trust that such an occurance will not happen again...

Steve Metalitz wrote:

> 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

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de