[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] Spin Control on/for Judyth was: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Technical Re: Jeff WIlliams Re: [Outreach]
Judyth and all WG-Outreach participants,
espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> - snippange -
>
> At 18:57 -0700 2002/10/23, Jeff Williams wrote:
> >espresso@e-scape.net wrote:
> [snip]
> >> An invitation has gone out to the membership asking those interested to subscribe. A number of postings from the [atlarge-discuss] relating to outreach questions have already been archived, as well as messages posted to the [Outreach] list directly.
> >
> > Yes this is accurate to a point. However those messages did not include
> >nor mention anything of the nature of using a DN that is NOT our
> >organizations DN which is again ICANNATLARGE.ORG. Hence
> >you are attempting a bit of spin here or you are very forgetful...
>
> Not at all, Jeff. For one thing, I assume that our members and other interested parties will be
>
> a) reasonably literate -- in English for now, but we can provide the Mailam subscription instructions in many languages on ICANNATLARGE.ORG once we need to, with a link to the Mailman subscription pages for our lists
Understood. However ICANNATLARGE.ORG is our official by vote,
DN. Hence this response or argument doesn't seem to make much sense
in the context of acting responsibly and in accordance with our democratic
choice. Therefore I can only see this as an attempt to circumvent that
principal. If so, how is that going to play and appear to future as well
as current members?
>
>
> b) sufficiently accustomed to using the Internet that the concept of using hyperlinks won't disturb them as much as it seems to disturb you.
Hyperlinks to what? With respect to my previous comment's this makes
absolutely no sense as to our ML of present, or actually lack there of..
>
>
> > Not must, but should. Sure we can run a ML from any server that
> >will host such a ML. But how does that look or seem as to our
> >creditability, Judyth? I think it makes us look like a bunch of
> >silly fools or worse...
>
> I really don't see why.
Yes I guess that you don't. It really is pretty simple. Again as I and Richard
previous tome have said before. We are grounded, or were, in democratic
principals. In that we voted for ICANNATLARGE.ORG as our official
DN site, having a MO for any purpose now, on any other DN that is
not under OUR control and and official DN for our organization,
we look like fools or worse as to having such a ML forum, in this case
the WG-Outreach. Hence already hampering moving forward as to
the actual purpose(s) of this WG and potentially causing many questions
that who's answers such as the one you just provided Judyth, as being
both confusing, and misleading to a great degree. Leaving us with potentially
facing a creditability problem that need not have occurred.
> The World Bank didn't feel diminished by using Lyris on an external server for its mailing lists for several years.
External server is fine. For and external DN, is not good, and in fact has
and will continue to be suspicious to one degree or another. The World Bank,
already yet again in some additional creditability trouble for a number of it's
loan practices, is hardly a good example to use as a guide, BTW...
See: http://www.conspiracyplanet.com/channel.cfm?ChannelID=52
http://www.jubilee2000uk.org/worldnews/northamerica/WB_fraud_internet.htm
http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=3235
> Many other organizations simply use the free lists on Yahoo or Topica and don't even worry about the ads in their messages looking bad.
This is of course true. And by in large those ML's are usually of the non-official
sort...
>
>
> >> Since delivery is by e-mail, browser and connection problems over "too many redirects" should not arise, especially since we're not talking about multiple redirects to get from the main site to the list subscription page.
> >
> > This isn't what I was referencing Judyth. Your not paying attention >again. Please try to. I was AGAIN referencing that some of our WG-Outreach
> >members will have trouble sending E-Mail from the server this list
> >of Jefsey's (Note, not this organizations) due to too many hops.
>
> I'm afraid this makes no sense to me at all.
I am sorry it doesn't.
>
>
> 1) Unlike most North Americans interested in Internet matters, I use "antique" Macs ("Classic" now being the term for OS 9 while this old machine uses 7.5) with a limited-hours dial-up connection on an ancient phone line that gets staticky when it rains.
I understand. Many in Canada use similar such connections, which supports
my point actually. Thank you...
> I'm also still using Eudora Light 3.1.3. In the past 3-4 years, I've received only one "too many redirects" bounce on an e-mail message (out of many thousands of messages) and that was due to an incorrect configuration at the user's ISP. Messages to [Outreach] show no such problem.
You are very fortunate. But as YJ has already complained as has Norbert,
this problem now is being crated by using such method for this ML for
outreach. So why make a problem or actually problems by using such
a confusing and technically more complex method? Makes very little
sense unless you have no other option, which is not the case with
this organization.
>
>
> 2) Too many redirects *are* a problem for older browsers, but not to the extent that one can't use a normal URL to get to another site.
Again I was NOT and did not reference URL's. I referenced the ML use
itself on a DN that 1.) DOes not belong to this organization, 2.) Is hosted
on a server that is in France and registered to Jefsey, and 3.)
whos Name servers DNS.PRESENCEWEB.ORG and
DNS2.PRESENCEWEB.ORG with IP address of, 209.151.85.32
and 209.151.85.33 and reverses back to Valuhost.com in Las Vegas.
Which will create an additional two hops that are not necessary
of even advisable...
> (If that were the case, I could never have got here!) As Eric mentioned, the Mailman installation on icann-at-large.org is not a problem even from Viet Nam. I even tried it with my trusty text-only browser.
Eric knows full well, as he has old me many times, that vnnic.com has
two seperate physical locations. Hence, hardly a good comparison...
One of these in in San Diego see whois listing:
Domain Name: VNNIC.COM
Administrative Contact:
Johnson, Lee P (LPJ251) lee@CONCEPTS.NET
Concepts.Net
8571 Highwood Drive
San Diego, CA 92119
(619) 888-3822
Technical Contact:
Officer, Chief Technical (CTO16) cto@HI-TEK.COM
Hi-Tek Multimedia, Inc.
3665 Ruffin Road, Suite 115
San Diego, CA 92123
(858)571-8431 (FAX) (858)571-8497
Record expires on 13-Feb-2004.
Record created on 13-Feb-2002.
Database last updated on 25-Oct-2002 22:02:14 EDT.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.HI-TEK.COM 209.126.152.184
NS2.HI-TEK.COM 216.98.138.163
NS3.HI-TEK.COM 209.126.152.185
================== End of Whois copy ===========
>
>
> 3) One doesn't normally have to send e-mail from the organization's Web hosting server to send a message to one of its lists.
Also true here as well. None the less this say nothing regarding confusion and
too many hops problems.
> The "mailto:"; links on our main site are just a device by which the sender uses his or her own e-mail software and account to a specified address -- the mail doesn't go through the ICANNATLARGE.ORG server at all!
I never said that it did. I said that the ML should originate from
ICANNATLARGE.ORG Judyth! Please work on your reading comprehension
skills...
>
>
> 4) Posting to a Mailman list does not require visiting the site it is hosted on: although there is a Web page for subscription, one can also request the "help" file and get instructions for subscribing by e-mail only.
Also true. And also this does not address the central confusion problem
directly and does nothing at all for aiding a potential new member or
future subscriber with respect to too many hops as I have already shown
clearly with Whois documentation to aid in support of....
>
>
> In the future, if we go ahead with the idea of offering e-mail accounts to members who need them, I am sure we will do so in a way which allows members to send mail wherever they want to.
This has nothing to do with what the problem is and shall remain. You seem again
to be just spinning or side stepping the central problem here Judyth.
> In the meantime, if anyone has a problem subscribing, they can ask here or e-mail anyone on the WG-Outreach for help.
Sure they can. However if the set-up was done properly, on the proper
DN which again is ICANNATLARGE.ORG, instead of ICANN-AT-LARGE.ORG
this would not be necessary.
>
>
> >Still in any event,
> >ICANN-AT-LARGE is NOT the DN that we all voted for as our
> >web site DN presence. Hence we are by using this DN confusing
> >or potentially confusing future members as well as the public at-large,
> >if you will be so kind as to pardon the obvious irony...
>
> Web site domain name is one thing and server configuration quite another. Most sites of any size use multiple servers, not all of which need to be the domain name servers. Visit http://www.cnet.com for a perfect example -- their lists are now (as of last month, I think) within the cnet.com domain but their Mac downloads are at downloadcom.com and other bits and pieces are elsewhere.
Download.com has been around for much longer than a months Judyth. I use
Donload.com and am on their CNET's automated notify list for download.com
for over two years. But again this has nothing what so ever to do with
how our ML for outreach is set up...
> The editors.ca site has its online directory on one external site and the branches' pages are on several other ones around the country. Most people never notice at all. The ones who do usually have enough Internet-savvy to want to filter out ads and block cookies from third-party sites, so they wouldn't find an external link confusing.
>
> Do you mean *you* are confused as to how this works, Jeff? If so, I'd be happy to explain it -- off-list, so as not to bore the rest of the group.
No I am not confused at all. But I can clearly see how for instance
a poor english speaker, such as a Ugandan national, would be...
>
>
> > I have no problem with anyone being the secretary Judyth. I hope that
> >you did not have or gather that impression from anything I said. What I DO
> >have a problem with is that if as an organization that holds the democratic
> >principals as central to our organization, that such positions be decided
> >by those that they may effect. In this case, or the case of the >WG-Outreach, the members of this WG should make that decision.
>
> I agree in principle. I simply offered to do it because in practice most people on committees would rather die than take minutes.
>
> >Personally I feel that
> >it would be better if we had only one secretary for the organization
> >as a whole, and that secretary would be on all of the WG's so as to
> >better be able to properly conduct that function.
>
> I think you misunderstand the situation here. The Secretary of the organization as a whole is the recording secretary for the board or executive council, as well as the person responsible for maintaining the membership records, dealing with correspondence for the organization as a whole, and usually various other day-to-day duties.
No I understand this completely. Had you read what I stated above on this
subject area, that should have been pretty clear. However in that we do not yet
have a BOd or and executive council this for the time being does not apply which
is why I *Only Suggested* a different alternative...
> Doing that properly does not depend on the same person also trying to be recording secretary for all the organization's committees.
Yes that is exactly what I was saying Judyth. But you cut that part out.
So I can see why you presented this unnecessarily argumentative response.
If you like or others would, I will happily re-add that which you snipped...
Please advise...
>
>
> Besides, with committees meeting by e-mail on an ongoing basis, doing that would undoubtedly mean the Secretary could not do any other work.
Doing which, Judyth? Your not making any sense here or you are leaving
out the response of mine that you snipped...
> However, as an elected officer and director of a non-profit organization, the Secretary cannot be compensated for fulfilling his/her duties. Few organizations have an independently-wealthy person who can work for them full-time (or more) without payment.
I agree. And if we do have such a secretary, he/she should be compensated
but only on a very minimum basis until we have some funding that can
support such a secretariat that good funding would than provide for...
However your response here is now more reveling in that it appears
that you have tried to self declare yourself as Secretariat without
the members approval or prior knowledge, and improper actin and
of itself, it is clear that you are looking at such because you are interested
in collecting some sort of up-front salary... Nothing wrong with that
desire or possibly a need. But to do so without the prior knowledge
and approval of the members, such is improper and not appropriate..
>
>
> It simply makes more sense, then, to let the organization's Secretary concentrate on his/her real job and let somebody from each committee serve as its secretary.
THAT IS EXACTLY what I suggested and an alternative Judyth. But you
snipped that part from my previous comments/remarks...
>
>
>
> >> Of course, if you like, we can have an election within the WG-Outreach to see who gets to do it ... especially if you'd care to volunteer your own services.
> >
> > I can do pretty much whatever needs to get done. All anyone needs to do
> >is ask. If I have conflicting schedules I will say so in short order, if >not I will proceed ASAP.
>
> Whoa, Jeff! If we need to elect a recording secretary for Outreach, then let's do so.
As again I said I would agree this would be best! >;) GIven that you seem to
be in an all fired hurry, I am flexible enough to move forward otherwise
on an as needed basis of course...
> I see no particularly democratic advantage in you appointing yourself because you don't want me to appoint myself!
I am not even remotely suggesting such. But it seems you are. Again nice
bit of spin Judyth, no cigar though. I really am not all that interested in doing
such, but would be willing to do so in a pinch which was what I was offering
ONLY to do...
>
>
> >> But, given that archiving is now automated and anyone who likes can read the postings, subscribe and participate in WG-Outreach, I expect the role of "Secretariat" will come down to answering the usual "how do I subscribe" questions and drafting periodic summaries of the discussion which will be approved by the WG before being published to the world.
> >
> > Perhaps so. However I think that the secretariat may have some Web
> >site duties as well for reports and the like...
>
> I don't see why.
I am sure you don't Judyth...
> We have a webmaster and WG-Web to handle the site, and all one needs to do is send them a report for posting.
We do? As I understand it we have a webmaster for ICANNATLARGE.ORG
but is that the same as or this ML for outreach in that it is installed for
ICANN-AT-LARGE.org, which are two entirely different DN's and
under different management...????
> It's probably unwise to have half-a-dozen people FTPing stuff onto the site at will if we want the site to work properly and look professional.
IF we segment the Web Site, this should not be a problem. It is done
frequently, I do it pretty often as well...
>
>
> >> Meanwhile, please note that since everyone on WG-Outreach is also receiving this general discussion list, there is no need to "cc" the Outreach list when you post to this one. Those of us who have limited connection time and disk space would really appreciate not getting unnecessary duplicates since the traffic here is already pretty high.
> >
> > Ok I will post a summary every week on Friday than. How's that? >;)
>
> Excellent ... but doesn't the Outreach committee need to elect you first?
No. But if they wish to I also have no problem with that, and in fact
would personally prefer it. However for the time being anyone can
that is a participant, can post to the WG-Outreach list could perform
this function, or even multiple participants could for that matter...
>
>
> Tongue firmly in cheek,
More like foot/feet in mouth... Or head in ass...
>
>
> Judyth
>
> ##########################################################
> Judyth Mermelstein "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
> Montreal, QC <espresso@e-scape.net>
> ##########################################################
> "A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
> ##########################################################
>
>
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