[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [atlarge-discuss] Re: What am I missing...

At 06:07 a.m. 2/12/2002, you wrote:
J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:

> Dear Walter,
> Joop is one of the few doers among us.
> http://icann-at-large.org now includes a page for @large links.
> The first link is to the current official site in disarray.
> The second one is to the restored forum.
> The third one to one to Joop's current site.
> Joop could I directly give the forum he http://forum.atlarge.ws address?
> You need to support that 3LD in your DNS and Apache confirguation file,
> targeting to the icannatlarge.com/forum directory.
> As indicated yesterday, everyone with a link to a specific action please
> profide a link
> I would be glad to link:
> - Joanna news site
> - Jan's response to ICANN
> - a page where Sotiris can report on ALAC
> etc.
I lack a website for which you could provide a link.  Consider me as the
classic "user," for whom the Internet is primarily a source of information
(in contradistinction to those who view it primarily as a potential or actual
source of profit).  If you want a link, you will have to provide it yourself.

That said, let me offer a brief "progress report" so that you and others
might better judge the need for such a link.  I became aware of Stuart Lynn's
 "A Plan of Action Regarding New gTLDs" through a posting on this mailing
list by Sotiris (originated elsewhere by Thomas Roessler).  Later I mentioned
my intent to respond to Lynn via public comment (the public comment period
expires Dec. 8th and if I cannot meet that, I will not post a comment at
all).  Subsequently I read Lynn's "Plan of Action" through and quickly
realized it treated much of its content overly summarily, depending crucially
on the earlier "Final Report of the New TLD Evaluation Process Planning Task
Force [NTEPPTF]" published 31 July 2002.  I had not been previously aware of
that earlier document, which had been through a draft, public comment, and
revision process without my knowledge.  Therefore, I diverged from addressing
Lynn's "Plan of Action" and have since taken the time to download (from the
ICANN website) and read the "Final Report."  Although that document in turn
references much other material, which I have not taken the time to access, I
believe that I now understand the issues well enough to respond to Lynn (from
a user's perspective).  My intent is to provide a comment via the ICANN web
site, and to cross-post it here as well.  I will do so as an individual, not
as a representative of icannatlarge.org (nor in my opinion can any one person
lay claim to that distinction, just yet!).

At this point I can draw a few tentative conclusions.  Even though the "Final
Report" mentioned above had been through many hands and a revision process,
it contained several annoying typos and inconsistencies, which would have
been caught had *any one* of the Task Force members committed him/herself to
reading it through *critically* from start to end.  (Yes, I am aware that I
am stepping on some toes here.  But the guiding principle is, if a person is
willing to have his/her name on a document, that person should be responsible
for all it contains.)

More importantly, I regret to say that my time would have been better spent
addressing the "Final Report" rather than the derivative Lynn "Plan of
Action."  The opportunity was lost through lack of timely knowledge.  I
lacked perfect diligence, but was not solely to blame.  Two persons who
regularly post on this mailing list (one of them *copiously*) had made
comments to ICANN on drafts of the "Final Report" during the public comment
period.  But as best as I can recall without going back through our archives,
neither of them had cross-posted their comments here, nor had even mentioned
in a post that such a draft document had been promulgated by ICANN and that
they intended to respond.  Both sets of commentaries were substantive - I'll
credit them that - but did not address every issue that I would have.

The lesson learned for this organization is that some of ICANN's
time-critical publications are too important to let our members discover for
themselves.  Our website, when we can finally claim to have one that works,
should provide all necessary links.  And until that day, this mailing list
has to be the medium that informs the membership.
How about the revived web forum, Jan?
I would very much like you to post your observations on the "Final Report" there as well, for a much wider readership.
Or are you waiting for Vittorio to restore the Forum on icannatlarge.org?

I have great problems with this mailing list, even apart from all the trolling. It is not a "community" because it is not known who are lurking on it.
This is why I wanted a new mailing list, discuss@icannatlarge.org , now ready to go, with it's "WHO" command enabled so that each member of the list (but not a non-subscriber) can see who the others are.
Just routing around the damage, like the Forum resuscitation, not a new "organization".

The mailing list has value to be used in conjunction with a web Forum, where the stuff of more value and permanence gets stored and systematized.
One of the additional benefits of the web based forum is that it is also trawled by the search engines.


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