Jay,
You wrote:
> Go figure,
>
> The IFWP list just came back on line.
>
> That does not change my message however.
> We need a list of record. The IFWP has
> acted as a central discussion list, but
> it has not been sanctioned as such by
> ICANN.
>
In fact, I never received your original posting that you reply to ;>).
But the point may not be reliability, but purpose.
IMHO, the IFWP list will be inappropriate to host general discussion about
ICANN, given the past history. It would be much more appropriate if ICANN
would manage its own list.
But more important is to define the purpose of the list(s).
Skipping to your original post:
> >
> >As we approach the public comment period
> >on the various proposals expected by ICANN,
> >the Internet community is left without a
> >mailing list of record -- the IFWP list
> >is dead!
> >
> >This is unacceptable!!!
> >
> >To accommodate the discussions surrounding
> >the PSO, ASO, DNSO, and MAC proposals, I
> >humbly suggest that ICANN host a generic
> >policy list ASAP.
> >
I am personally against an all-inclusive list.
We have separate issues, and I find appropriate that they are managed in
separate lists.
Let's discuss about DNSO in a DNSO list, and Membership in a Membership
list, without bringing all issues together in one big melting pot, where
everybody discusses of everything.
We may have a general list, but I insist that specialized lists are set up,
much like the IETF.
About the obvious objection that somebody (guess who?) will cross post any
possible list on the planet, there are ways to handle it. Examples:
- a policy against cross-posting (by policy I don't mean a nice statement
that has the same value as the "no parking" signs in Italy, but something
that is monitored and enforced);
- good practice by the others, who will carefully delete all non-relevant
cc:s from their answers to the cross-posted messages.
> >At the very least, ICANN should designate
> >a single external list as the list of record.
> >I suspect that ORSC and others would be happy
> >to host such a list, and could have one
> >operational within 24 hours.
> >
Indeed.
But the list has to be set up either by an independent party or by a
superior authority.
I have complete trust in ORSC, but it will be more appropriate to have ICANN
host them.
First of all, not everybody may know you, and therefore there may be
objections from newcomers about the fact that ORSC will host the list where
the discussion about DNSO is held, knowing that ORSC will be one of the
parties involved.
Second, and more important, ICANN has to start having a more visible role.
It has to take its responsibilities, operational and political, as the
learning period is slowly letting the way to the action phase.
Regards
Roberto
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
