Hello Jefsey, my questions are those of a former member of the ICANN Board, a former member of the ALAC, and someone who considers that Internet processes should place far more emphasis on the Internet user (rights, default settings for privacy, etc). Metrics? I was simply quoting some colleagues who suggested that these statistics were useful in evaluating the presence and/or contribution of members. So far, nobody has offered a documented example of these statistics having any qualitative value. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "Jefsey" <jefsey@jefsey.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 15:30:07 Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org At 12:21 19/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
Thanks Jefsey for your technical observations. I read all the messages on this thread (and chuckled on the sarcastic ones) but none answered my initial questions:
Dear Jean-Jacques, JE SUIS JEFSEY your questions are highly politcally incorrect and only reflect the ICANN totalitary spirit! They reflect the idea that an ALAC member can be sensored on this list. And that to send a mail on the list one must first obtain an approval
- Was there a decision to task any particular individual/firm with carrying out this statistical/nominative tracking? Was this decision taken in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)?
obtained through a democratic process or .... "elsewhere".
- Was this submitted to regular review and approval, or is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent authorization (date, reference)?
after being reviewed and approved - except in the case of a pre-1789 special priviledge.
- If this is being used as a metrics tool, what is its qualitative relevance? Has it been effectively used to "measure" the value of this or that member, say in ALAC? How were the criteria determined, and by whom (date, reference)?
I am afraid you do not evaluate the Narten Express correctly . This is not a metric ***tool***: you do not have a received a script to do it by yourself with your own secret parameters. This a ***service*** provided by Thomas permitting you to have your own metric tool without an effort. Thomas has chosen - his liberty - to tell us his weekly opinion on the list through this service. He could have chosen to send us a long mail with his comments.
Remaining silent on these questions would not, in my mind, serve the "polycratic rights" of the "cyberagora system".
The catenet's cyberagora system by the internet technology is low grade for a simple reason : it lacks myriads of self operated services like Thomas' one. Some to bring others information, others to remove oneself from that services' lists. However, the problem is not with Thomas, it is with the ICANN centralization culture, which depends on, but also calls for the IETF centralization in spite of the Subsitiarity Principle and RFC 6852 on innovation by competition.
You are no doubt familiar with the novel by Dave Eggers, "The Circle" (Penguin Books, 2013).'
I never was able to determine if this was about a Google or an ICANN clone. I will support you worry about Thomas the day you campaign against whois! Take care! jfc
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Jefsey" <jefsey@jefsey.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 11:19:48 Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Jean-Jacques,
I am afraid this list of points denotes an interventionist attitude which is out of context with our multitude's polycratic rights. It is interesting to note that it surprisingly comes as an opposition - between two former ICANN Board Members - from a French ambassador to a glasnost service by an American industry member.
However, it calls for an extended understanding of the internet cyberagora system I plead for that should be discussed either on the IETF or on the Libre's technical WG lists. Addressing the request refers to the uses of classes of senders and groups of receivers (or closed user groups, or more generally VGNs [virtual glocal networks]) within a distribution list. Something I advocate for a long as an SMTP/DNS/CATENET/etc/ generalization of what is already non-interoperationnally disseminated in the technology. In this case it could probably be patched in using the keyword field?
jfc
At 23:16 02/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote:
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear Colleagues,
my request is to be unsubscribed ONLY from the "Weekly posting summary" established by T. Narten, not from other elements on the At-Large lists (this is in answer to Seun's remark). My request is based on the following considerations:
1) This "summary" was considered by some in the ALAC as a metric of effective presence and work of its members (Carlton's remark). I have long questioned the validity of this approach, and still do. This measurement not have its equivalent, say on the ICANN Board, where the "360° Review" of Directors is carried out with other tools.
2) This form of statistical data has no qualitative value, as it may record a peak of correspondence from one ALAC or At-Large member giving family news and being congratulated by everyone else, or any other topic, for that matter.
3) Nominative tracking also raises the question of how such information may or may not be used for purposes it was or was not designed for, e.g. surveillance.
4) A minor point, but non-US citizens may have noticed that the "summary" is provided by, and emanates from, an address in a US corporation. In itself this is not a cause for concern, but some questions need to be answered: was there a decision to ask/grant any particular individual/firm to carry out this statistical/nominative tracking (date, reference), was this submitted to regular review and approval, is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent authorization?
5) It is not desirable, nor fair, that members of the At-Large and/or ALAC lists cannot ask to be unsubscribed from one item (in this case the "Weekly posting summary") without being deleted from these lists for other items and debates.
6) It goes without saying, but I wish to make clear here, that my lack of enthusiasm for this "Weekly posting summary" is in no way a judgment on the value of its author, whom I worked with as a member of the ICANN Board, and whose experience and opinion I value.
Jean-Jacques.
----- Mail original ----- De: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> À: "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com> Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs@dyalog.net>, "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Janvier 2015 22:13:40 Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
Dear Colleagues:
I beg to disagree these postings are not desirable and I will tell you why.
The ALAC has developed performance/engagement/utility metrics that, for better or worse, include elements that are displayed by this report.
Consider then this report an artful early warning device. I should think such a one is both good and necessary for ALAC members; shooting the messenger, or, 'disappearing' the message would hardly be curative.
I'm of a mind that only when the ALAC metrics are disavowed, then and only then one could reasonably insist this notification is unnecessary.
-Carlton
-Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Narten < narten@us.ibm.com > wrote:
this is to request that I be unsubscribed from this "At-Large weekly posting summary", which I find not useful.
Sorry, individual folk can't opt out of this message, as it's sent to the list. Everyone on the list gets it, as they do all postings.
If it's the collective sense of this list that these postings are no longer needed or desired, I will stop generating them.
Thomas
Jean-Jacques. ‚ €( ( KKKKHXZ[ÃœšYÚ[€al -----
De: "Thomas Narten" < narten@us.ibm.com > À: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org [�›ÞpêNˆ™[™™Y@ 2 Ja@ 2 Janvier 2015 06:53:04 Øš™]ˆÃ�]S\™Ã™WHÙYZÛHÃZÛHÃœÃ�ing summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org ‚Fðtal of 5 messages in the last 7 days.
script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:04 EST 2015
Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 1 | 25.50% | 11120 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org
ŒŒ HHNK�ŒIH
MLYZ[ˆ]ttcsweb.org
20.00% | 1 | 18.97% | 8273 | narten at us.ibm.com 20.00% | 1 | 17.98% | 7839 | louis.houle at oricom.ca 20.00% | 1 | 17.93% | 7819 | b.schombe at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ LŒ H HLŒ H Ã�ŒHÃ�[�ˆ€> __________________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large ‚BÔÆ&vRöffÂ6ÂÂ6—FS¢â¢‡GG¢òöFÆ&vRæÂ6æâæ÷&r >
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org