[At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org

Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
Mon Jan 19 16:42:49 UTC 2015


I think  the  bean counters  are at work
G

Glenn McKnight
mcknight.glenn at gmail.com
skype  gmcknight
twitter gmcknight
.

On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques <jjs at dyalog.net>
wrote:

> 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 at jefsey.com>
> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "Jefsey" <jefsey at jefsey.com>
> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 15:30:07
> Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for
> at-large at 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 at jefsey.com>
> >À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>
> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> >Envoyé: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 11:19:48
> >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary
> >for  at-large at 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 at gmail.com>
> > >À: "Thomas Narten" <narten at us.ibm.com>
> > >Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs at dyalog.net>, "At-Large Worldwide"
> > ><at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> > >Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Janvier 2015 22:13:40
> > >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for
> > >at-large at 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 at 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 at us.ibm.com >
> > > > À: at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >[�›ÞpêNˆ™[™™Y@ 2 Ja@ 2 Janvier 2015 06:53:04
> > >Øš™]ˆÃ�]S\™Ã™WHÙYZÛHÃZÛHÃœÃ�ing summary
> > for at-large at 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
> > > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------
> > >LΠ     H
> > >HLΠ    H
> > >Ã�ŒHÃ�[�ˆ€> __________________________________________________
> > > > At-Large mailing list
> > > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >‚BÔÆ&vRöff­6­Â6—FS¢â¢‡GG¢òöFÆ&vRæ­6æâæ÷&r >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >At-Large mailing list
> > >At-Large at 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 at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>


More information about the At-Large mailing list