[discuss] Should the 1net discussion be split into two (or more) lists?

Tue Jan 21 12:54:48 UTC 2014

I support your suggestion, Joe, with one small mod. 

Discuss Brazil
Discuss IG and strengthening MS participation
Informational only posts of relevance

Example of latter: an event of relevance occuring that some 1Net participants aware of. Examples only , African industry organizing event w panel / discussion of IG, with speakers, date. 

Speech by Fadi Chahade @ State of the NET

Speech by President of Rwanda re role of private sector engagement 

WSIS+10 consultation in Geneva, Feb
CSTD WG Enhanced Cooperation. Geneva, Feb

I would propose that the third category is "informational" /not debated, but provide links to further info if an event is "nominated". 

This will also contribute to broadening awareness of the places and spaces where IG broadly is under discussion. 

Marilyn Cade
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T

-----Original Message-----
From: joseph alhadeff <joseph.alhadeff at oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:28:53 
To: <discuss at 1net.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Should the 1net discussion be split into two (or
 more) lists?

Perhaps we could break the discussion into two threads.  Discuss and 
Discuss Brazil.  One being more general and long-term, one more specific 
to Brazil, with the possibility of limited cross-posting to cover real 
overlap?
On 1/20/2014 6:49 PM, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote:
> +1 Peter
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:44 AM, "Peter H. Hellmonds" <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu> wrote:
>>
>> George,
>>
>> thank you for your suggestion as obvious we have a lot of traffic on
>> this list. It reminds me of good old Usent newsgroups during heated times.
>>
>> However, IMHO this idea of splitting the list may not be such a good
>> idea after all.
>>
>> We could end up dividing discussions between representation and
>> technical issues, which may be intended by the way you describe the
>> setup. But this could also mean that one group decides to not get
>> involved to even see the arguments presented in the other sub-list.
>> However, I do see benefit for all to listen to both groups of arguments.
>> And if some topic would be relevant to both sub-lists, we might end up
>> with twice the mails if people on both sub-lists would decide to
>> cross-post, as has happened with other external lists.
>>
>> Keeping the amount of traffic as high as it is right now might
>> discourage some from following the discussions on this list, but Avri
>> has pointed out a possible solution, i.e. that one could simply use a
>> filter to throw certain messages into a bit-bucket (e.g. folder:
>> discuss-read-later) based on some keywords.
>>
>> May I further suggest that we all do *not* simply hit the "Reply to all
>> plus list" button without consideration, but make sure to put in a
>> marker into the beginning of the subject line that reflects the topic
>> area, e.g. "MS REP: how to chose reps from various multi-stakeholder
>> groups" and "IG TECH: IPv6 and privacy considerations". If we would have
>> some discipline and guidance from a list care-taker (to avoid the term
>> moderator), we might get along just fine. (ok, agreed, that is a big
>> *IF* :-) )
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. (I'll happily go along if the majority decides to split.)
>>
>> -- Peter
>>
>>> On 19/01/2014 16:07, George Sadowsky wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> So I propose considering
>>> to split this list into two lists:
>>>
>>> *_1net-representation_* will be devoted to issues of representation that
>>> concern us.  It should be oriented toward the makeup of 1net and other
>>> groups that claim to focus on Internet governance issues.
>> [...]
>>> *_1-net solutions_* will be devoted to the issues in Internet governance
>>> that concern us.  It should be oriented to problem statements,
>>> descriptions of possible solutions, technical assessments, and
>>> implications of proposed modifications in the structure and distribution
>>> of responsibilities within the Internet administrative and technical
>>> ecosystem.
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Peter H. Hellmonds
>> <peter.hellmonds at hellmonds.eu>
>> OpenPGP public key: http://blog.hellmonds.net/contact/openpgp/
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>> <0xCF1DCE0F.asc>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

_______________________________________________
discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org
http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss