[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[atlarge-discuss] ORG: Mail-List Protocol Suggestion
Jeff,
I see your point:
>As the members area all likely in one way or another to be impacted to
one degree or another by ICANN, >I would think that an open process such
a WG's should address these issues and the Panel should
>complete the tasks that it is mandated by the vote of the membership to
perform and than report to the >members for their review and approval by
vote as to how and what to proceed upon from those reports...
Therefore I suggest in order to provide a better "Open WG(s)" platform
here on the Open channel Mail-List server, a small protocol in the
Subject line be used.
For example:
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] DNSO: (The DNSO issue here)
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] ASO: (The ASO issue here)
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] PSO: The deployment of IPv6
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Rel: The Chair relations to
ICANN/IANA/DoC...
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] Org: Bylaws of IcannatLarge
As you will note, this simple protocol is fine BUT getting others to
follow is going to be difficult (I think Joanne tried to index threads
on a Number system.
Another option would be to have five Mail-List Server that return mail
to the [atlarge-discuss] mail server. That is:
TO:
Subject: [atlarge-discuss DNSO] (The DNSO issue here)
Subject: [atlarge-discuss ASO] (The ASO issue here)
Subject: [atlarge-discuss PSO] The deployment of IPv6
Subject: [atlarge-discuss REL] The Chair relations to
ICANN/IANA/DoC...
Subject: [atlarge-discuss ORG] Bylaws of IcannatLarge
Which are received as:
FROM:
Subject: [atlarge-discuss] (the DNSO, ASO, PSO, REL, ORG issue here)
The latter of these two examples may cause confusion, with those who use
Reply buttons.
Jeff how do you suggest the >"open process such a WG's" be handled? On
this Mail-list.
James
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 1:37 AM
To: jkhan
Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] PANEL CHAIR Post - ELECTION Action
James and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
jkhan wrote:
> Jeff, I to am feeling the frustration of un-affirmative action of the
> panel. My understand of how it is you feel is: Now that the Panel is
> complete and chair established is reasonable that in "30 days at most"
> the members should expect a reasonable statement/plan/guide to address
> the three areas of the Icann structure.
Again with all due respect James, I think you misunderstood my
previous response on this thread. The Panel's mandate does not include
a statement/plan/guide to address ANY areas of ICANN, structure or
otherwise... This is not to say that as the members, we cannot
ourselves direct the Panel or WG's to address areas/issues/statements
and/or ICANN committee proposals/proposal drafts/ect... Hence it is
more a matter of how to best address these, instead of WHOM should do
so. As the members area all likely in one way or another to be impacted
to one degree or another by ICANN, I would think that an open process
such a WG's should address these issues and the Panel should complete
the tasks that it is mandated by the vote of the membership to perform
and than report to the members for their review and approval by vote as
to how and what to proceed upon from those reports...
>
>
> I concur (several of us concur),
>
> Please pardon my Socratic questions, as they are proposed to stimulate
> some response from the Panel itself.
Well as we have seen thus far very few panel members respond at all,
and those that do, do so in less than an expedient manner so as to make
adequate forward progress in a reasonable time frame...
>
>
> If the Panel would un-veil the mystery, I ask, what are the Issues
> within the following three categories:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> DNSO: the Domain Name Supporting Organization
> Issue 1
> Issue 2
> Issue etc...
>
> ASO: the Address Supporting Organization
> Issue 1
> Issue 2
> Issue etc...
>
> PSO: the Protocol Supporting Organization
> Issue 1: The deployment of IPv6
> Issue 2
> Issue etc...
>
> Icann/Iana Relations: the Lines-of-Communication
> Issue 1: Chair relations to ISOC/ICANN/IANA...
> Issue 2
> Issue etc...
>
> Icannatlarge: the Structure of our Org
> Issue 1: Bylaws of IcannatLarge
> Issue 2
> Issue etc...
>
> ------------------------Clip Here ----------------------------------
> Ps: Feel free to add your issue to the list above and re-circulate]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I have PSO Issues regarding the deployment of IPv6, so there's an
> issue topic. Eric notes issues with the Bylaws (our Bylaws)
> Jeff expresses issues with the Org chair relations to the ISOC/Icann
> etc...
>
> I have only one ambition at this time, and that is to see that this
> Panel can correctly listen, identify, and organize the Issues, so that
> dedicated members such as: Sotiris, Jan, Eric, Jim, Stephen, Joop,
> Judith, Jeff, ... Et.al. the members of Icannatlarge, can see to it
> that affirmative arguments regarding the issues are properly addressed
> to Icann.
>
> Vittorio, we shall abide with reason for a reasonable amount of time.
> Please help make this a workable space, so that we may all get down to
> the work at hand.
James, at present, none of these are in the purview of the mandate of
the Panel at this time. In fact, many members including several panel
members do not even seem to feel a need to address any of these issues
with ICANN or to ICANN...
>
>
> James Khan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com]
> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:58 PM
> To: jkhan
> Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: PANEL CHAIR ELECTION - Free ISOC
> Membership - and no voice and vote by individual members..
>
> James and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
>
> First off the Panel is not elected to "make a working Issues
> structure", James. >;) Second on the odd chance that the members
> voted for the Panel to do so, it shouldn't take more than 30 days at
> most. I have participated in several similar efforts of the nature to
> which you incorrectly imply, where we had only 15 days to set up a
> working structure with fewer members of a "Panel" to do so..
>
> The Panel needs to complete the mandate to which it was elected to
> do, and no more, in no more than 30 days. It has already had several
> months and has yet to complete a single task it was elected to do even
> though allot of volunteers, including myself, Eric, and Sotiris have
> pledged to do.
>
> Despite that, I personally, and I believe Sotiris also have done what
> we pledged to do irrespective of the Panel's many political endeavors
> into political intrigue that have little or nothing to do with it's
> elected mandate. This is on record.
>
> Now James, I hope I have answered your very well meaning but
> misstated question adequately or fully... If not, than please feel
> free to ask any follow-up questions as to my answer. >;)
>
> jkhan wrote:
>
> > Sotiris, Eric, Jeff;
> >
> > I understand and appreciate your opinions, as I too have expressed
> > my reservations. Tell me what you feel is a reasonable amount of
> > time for
>
> > this panel to make a working Issues structure??? 2-3-4 months ???
> >
> > James
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sotiris Sotiropoulos [mailto:sotiris@hermesnetwork.com]
> > Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 9:06 PM
> > To: Eric Dierker
> > Cc: jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com; jkhan@metromgr.com;
> > atlarge-panel@lists.fitug.de; atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de
> > Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: PANEL CHAIR ELECTION - Free ISOC
> > Membership - and no voice and vote by individual members..
> >
> > Eric Dierker wrote:
> >
> > > <disclaimer>
> > > I am not any classification within ICANN, I am only an individual
> > > user. I am only a consultant in the term Chief InterGlobal
> > > Strategist (yes some think that means interplanetary;-) but it
> > > means
>
> > > i work with systems, like political, IT, Legal, and financial, and
> > > try to make them work together. Yes I work internationally with my
> > > main office in Vietnam.
> > >
> > > I just note that our Panel seems to now be controlled by ISOC
> > > members.
> >
> > > There is no right or wrong to this but we must accept it. It has
> > > major
> >
> > > implications. I also believe it is no accident.
> >
> > It is no accident indeed!
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Too bad that another group is seeking control of the best chance
> > > for individuals to be represented. But what the heck maybe it is
> > > a good
>
> > > group!
> >
> > Yeah right! A group that runs a registry to represent
> > individuals... hmmm.
> >
> > SS
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> > For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de
> >
> >
>
> 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
>
>
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