Avri, I agree with your comments and if this idea is approved by the Council, I volunteer to help you in monitoring and drafting rules. Regards Olga 2007/11/29, Avri Doria <avri@psg.com>:
Hi,
On 29 nov 2007, at 19.21, Greg Ruth wrote:
It appears that the IDN WG mailing list is still operative. I propose that this be the basis for a 6-month trial of an IDN discussion list. As Council chair, Avri is willing to monitor the list during the trial period. I would envision that ICANN would publicly announce the "creation" of this list (probably with a new name), describing its purpose and rules, and explaining how to subscribe.
Please put this on the agenda to be discussed at the next meeting.
Thanks Greg. I will add this to the agenda. In the meantime perhaps we can discuss it some on the list.
Some personal views:
I think this could be done with a minimum of pain, and see it as an experiment for some of the work we may need to do under the GNSO reform.
I think one of the first things we would need to do is let the people on this list know we were doing this and make sure they were still interested in being subscribed. In terms of adding new subscribers, I would suggest a very loose mechanism were anyone asking to join would be asked to send the monitor(s) a note explaining who they were and why they wanted to join. This would then be passed on to the list. I would suggest that we have minimal criteria at the start, essentially that they had not been suspended from any other ICANN list within the previous 6 months.
As for monitoring and drafting some rules etc, (which I suggest we base on a combination of rules already in use in ICANN + the rules used in the IETF and defined in RFCs), assuming the council approves the idea, i would look for some volunteers to help me in the task.
In terms of the issue of subscribers expecting some sort of acknowledgement of the discussions and comments on this list, I think part of the monitor's task should involve passing on to the council the gist of comments, and pointers to particularly significant comments, as they relate to topics under discussion. Though I also think it should be made clear in the description of the list that just because topics are discussed on this list is no guarantee that those topics are on any particular GNSO council agenda.
Assuming the proposal is approved, I would also suggest renaming the the list from GNSO-idn-wg to GNSO-idn-discussion.
a.