The web-based ALAC forum is moderated (spam, etc. is not posted). ALAC
members, per your request, receive all emails sent to the forum address
(before they are posted).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-alac@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> Roberto Gaetano
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 9:04 AM
> To: roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; izumi@xxxxxxx
> Cc: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [alac] Action points / proposals from the Rome meetings
>
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> I agree that to force a merger will create more problems than it solves.
> Also, if the idea is to find "something more appealing to users" I don't
> think that the GA will help.
>
> >
> >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.
>
> The problem is that if the message is received by everybody, with nobody
> specifically in charge for it, it will not be answered. If we
> want to manage
> an open forum, we need to allocate the resources to it.
> Personally, I would be more in favour to a web post without sending to a
> mailig list. But this does not change the issue, which is who answers.
>
> >
> > > 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
> > > lists?)
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Again, it is OK if everybody participates to the discussion on a
> voluntary
> basis, but without a responsible we will never get good results.
>
> Regards
> Roberto
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>