Re: [alac] Action points / proposals from the Rome meetings
- To: Izumi Aizu <izumi@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [alac] Action points / proposals from the Rome meetings
- From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:03:46 +0100
On 2004-03-21 21:50:18 +0900, Izumi Aizu wrote:
> Well, for matters of common interest, sure. But AL's regional
> acvitities, formation of ALS and RALO may not be of their
> interest. Likewise, some of their immediate interests may not
> be ours. So, to have common slot is fine, but we need
> separate meetings, too, right?
Yup. A reasonable approach for this could consist in attempting to
discuss policy issues together with others, and to break up for any
internals and organizing stuff.
> 17. We should find a way to revitalize our forum and/or
> replace it with something more appealing to users.
> (Proposal: shall we merge it with the GA list?)
> Though Denise said it is moderated, I think it is not - there
> are too many spam mails there! Merging with GA, or adding a
> new list with GA may work.
Traditionally, the GA list has only been open to subscribers;
alac-forum is attracting spam, though. The real problem of the GA
list is not spam, though: It is the bad karma that this list has
collected. In hindsight, I guess that shutting down the GA list and
starting over with stricter rules migh have been a better idea than
keeping the moribund GA list alive.
That said, we urgently need to find some way for open discussion --
the current forum clearly does not work: While we may have a hard
time to reach out, those people who are coming to us (through the
forum) have an even harder time getting any response back from ALAC,
or getting involved in any discussion with others who are
interested. Let's face it: In terms of enabling communication among
individuals about ICANN issues, we have been a miserable failure so
far. I'd hope we can change that.
> 18. We should find a way to make the als-discuss list
> operational and active. (Proposal: shall we appoint one of
> us as "facilitator" for public communication, with the
> specific responsibility to oversee public discussion mailing
> I would recommend to have two people, perhaps, than only one
> facilitator. Unless we have "superman/women".
While it's good to have someone who's responsible, I'd hope that --
once we have put an infrastructure in place that actually encourages
communication -- all members of this committee attempt to
participate in discussions.
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/