listservs

[Avri Doria]

Hi Judy,

I guess using the email list as is done on this list allows us to have an asynchronous conversation among the interested members of the list.  In addition to using the filtering and sorting capabilities of the mail systems I also thread the messages, allowing for ease of participation in many ongoing discussions over the course of an 18 hour email day.

But I would have no objection to adding the sort of strict discipline list you mention.  We would have this list for the at-length "give and take ... ad nauseum" discussions some of us really value, and the strict list as you defined.  Of course some of us, those on both ists would have to be disciplined about stopping at x messages per subject on the strict list or we would need the Leader of List to be a strict list disciplinarian.

avri

On 22 Nov 2011, at 09:22, Branzelle, Judy wrote:

> By way of example, it is 9:20 a.m. eastern and I have already received at least 8 emails from this group. As the day progresses, this is expected to continue. Surely there is a better way.
> 
> Judy
> 
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Joly MacFie
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 5:33 AM
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: Re: listservs
> 
> I think you are missing Judy's point. She is saying she wishes to stay involved and informed, without the debates. A well curated announce list is the only solution. Working in harmony with the confluence as a reference.
> 
> Avris's further point is this is as true for NCSG as it is for NCUC.
> 
> If furthermore NCUC needs to "get a room" to hash out internal discussions, so be it. IMO it's not a question of if but when.
> 
> j
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 3:13 AM, William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch> wrote:
> Hi
> 
> It seems we're talking about several different rationales/models for the possible creation of an NCUC listserv, each of which has different implications. 
> 
> One, which appeals to me, would be a list for discussing any purely internal process stuff.  So discussions (and the occasional disagreements) about how the constituency organizes its affairs, e.g. elections, filling slots on SG bodies or GNSO working groups, and so on, as well as any announcements from the constituency leadership, would go to this list.  Discussions of substantive issues related to GNSO or Internet governance more generally would remain on the SG list, since these really should be of interest to both constituencies' members.
> 
> A second, which Avri and Joly are suggesting, would be a list solely for announcements and administrative messages from the constituency leadership.  Personally, I'm not sure I see how much this would help, since a) it's not obvious that there's going to be a need for so many such one-way messages to justify a separate list, and b) this would not address the sort of complaints made by Alain about messages pertaining to NCUC laundry, dirty or otherwise.
> 
> A third, which if I understand her correctly Judy Branzelle is suggesting, would be a list that hosts the bulk of discussions both substantive and process, on the grounds that there's just too much mail to read.  This I have even more difficulty with than the second.  While I can understand NPOC members not wanting to read NCUC internal process debates (any more than NCUC members want to read NPOC internal process debates), now that the chartering and reorganization are done, most of our traffic should normally be on substantive issues, as it was before we had to deal with the institutional tumult. I would think that anyone who's made the commitment to get involved in GNSO/ICANN, or at least to keep an eye on developments therein even if they can't consistently participate, should want to be connected to the substantive discussions.  Moving these into an NCUC-only space would impede collective awareness of the issues and make coordination on them more difficult.  A rump SG list that doesn't host these probably would have relatively little traffic or value.  
> 
> Just my view. What do others think?
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Nov 22, 2011, at 12:26 AM, Joly MacFie wrote:
> 
> 
> I'd say yes to both.
> 
> j
> 
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 5:52 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The other possibility, it the NCSG leadership is willing to countenance another list, which in the past they weren't, they could establish a NCSG announce list that our leaders could us for informational and transparency purposes.
> 
> Or maybe there could be both a NCSG and a NCUC announce-only list for our leaders to use for announcements and transparency when they are acting in the best interests of the membership of the respective organizations.
> 
> avri
> 
> On 17 Nov 2011, at 15:00, Joly MacFie wrote:
> 
>> My 2c.
>> 
>> I believe there should at least be a NCUC-MEMBERS (or suitable equivalent) list, announce-only, for announcements and admin - then people who might otherwise be ignoring the general to-and-fro of NCSG-discuss can set their filters so as to get important notices.
>> 
>> j
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
>> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
>> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
>> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> -
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Joly MacFie  218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
> WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com
> http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -