Discuss mailing list

["Dennis Emory Hannon" <info AT backplanedns.org>]

Fellow nerds,

I've been monitoring this mailing list for quite some time as I run two tier 2 servers so I like to be updated on what changes I'm supporting. I like the mailing list. It's easy and convenient plus I can access my email anywhere. I find it valuable to read the dialog back and forth among voters which helps me understand why they decide to cast the vote they do. The downside is, it's pretty tough to keep track of everything. It would be nice if we could still have the best of both worlds like the voting buttons in outlook for example


Another thing I would like to mention is it would be nice if the tier 2 server operators had some kind of voice in the voting process for new TLD’s. Im extremely concerned about the latest fashion trend to create TLD’s for every little damn thing.  It doesn’t make any sense, it’s short lived, and risks conflict with ICANN TLD’s.

Just my two cents if it matters to anyone

 

 

Hostmaster@:

Mr. Dennis Emory Hannon

BackplaneDNS.org / Backplane LLC

 

Phone:

+1 (716) 348-0064 

 

Linkedin:

http://linkedin.com/in/dennis-hannon-52236019/

 

-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org [mailto:discuss-request AT lists.opennicproject.org] On Behalf Of vv AT cgs.pw
Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 9:22 PM
To: discuss AT lists.opennicproject.org
Subject: Re: [opennic-discuss] [RESULTS] .front TLD

 

You've missed the results of the last few times that has been discussed. There are people here who make it quite clear that a mailing list is all they will accept and they will leave if we change that.

 

A forum needs to be maintained, which is a problem, I will be overrun with spam in a few days otherwise.

Personally I prefer and appreciate the benefits of a forum, but the general consensus is different here.

Also, the proposal and consequent test site, for a system that does a parallel forum and mailing list where users can chose one or both and not miss anything has recently failed miserably. I will also point out that we have a perfectly good forum that was set up the last time forums were discussed. I put a lot of effort into it at the beginning but many members boycott it. It's just not going to fly.

 

Sorry about the reality check. :)

 

Regards,

        Ole

 

 

re new here. That discussion comes up frequently and you apparently have missed

 

On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 19:55:56 -0500

gitgud AT tfwno.gf wrote:

 

> The best thing that could happen is if we abandoned the mailing list

> completely. A forum could provide for better organization of threads,

> improved accessibility, the ability to pin and prioritize important

> conversations and announcements, and still provide a legacy interface

> for email updates on conversations that are opt-in rather than the

> baseline requirement of participating in governance decisions and

> staying up to date on internal affairs.

>

> On 2017-12-31 19:37, Rouben wrote:

> > I’m afraid I cannot comment on most of the items gitgud mentioned,

> > however, one thing I will agree on is the fact that mailing list

> > voting can be problematic.

> > Obviously, it has worked for years, however, it also has the

> > potential to become contentious in certain situations as we’ve all

> > seen.

> >

> > Therefore I want to float the following idea by the members of the

> > list...

> >

> > 1. We get a proper online voting system. I mean a proper system, not

> > something we can cobble together from existing code that does

> > something similar... I mean a mature, supported system.

> >

> > 2. I am personally in favour of going with a commercial system for

> > the following reasons:

> >

> > a) it will a third party system, not operated by any of our members,

> > and will therefore be “impartial” vs. if it was operated by an

> > OpenNIC member.

> >

> > b) a commercial system will most likely require some sort of

> > payment. This financial obligation should be fronted by those

> > calling the election as a sign of good faith that they are serious.

> >

> > I know of one we’d used at work for student council elections,

> > called simplyvoting.com [1] that charge per election $200US per 250

> > registered voters (how many members do we have?) There are countless

> > others, I am just providing an example.

> >

> > I am sure you’d be able to think of counterpoints to this. One I can

> > think of is that for some members, the voting system fees may not be

> > affordable for whatever reason... e.g. for residents of some Eastern

> > European countries $200 may be closer to one’s monthly salary and

> > therefore be completely unaffordable. Since OpenNIC is open to

> > everyone, this may be an obvious issue. Not sure how to solve it.

> >

> > 3. Finally, for the members that are more democratically purist, I

> > want to highlight that online voting itself is imperfect, and there

> > are good reasons why a lot of governments still use an old school

> > paper ballot system. This video covers the challenges:

> > https://youtu.be/w3_0x6oaDmI However, a dedicated, purpose built

> > online voting system is surely better than a mailing list (i.e. no

> > system at all).

> >

> > So I am curious on these 2 topics, in principle and in

> > practice:

> >

> > 1. What do you think of a dedicated voting system?

> >

> > 2. How do you feel about going with a commercial, third-party

> > operated system that the proposal initiators would need to

> > (potentially) pay for, say, per election?

> >

> > Rouben

> >

> > On Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 18:26 <gitgud AT tfwno.gf> wrote:

> >  

> >> As is probably obvious by now, with the vote for .front concluded,

> >> the resolution to approve .front as a top level domain has failed.

> >> In a tally of 14 YES

> >> - 14 NO,

> >> the motion has failed to achieve a simple majority of support in

> >> the mailing list.

> >>

> >> There's a lot to get into, but to start, I will fully admit that I

> >> have been less than stringent about the "official procedure" of

> >> this vote. As it stands, the voting rules in place are nebulous,

> >> lack comprehensiveness, and leave a lot of responsibility to the

> >> person who puts forward the proposal. This is nobody's fault, as

> >> not much has actually come through the mailing list in a while, but

> >> is likely an oversight that will need to be addressed in the

> >> future. If I took liberties during the proceedings, it is because I

> >> found them necessary to take and the members of the community I

> >> talked with were largely comfortable with me doing so.

> >>

> >> There was a certain point in this vote when I asked one voter,

> >> Philipp Schafft, to clarify an invalid vote he had cast during this

> >> vote. Philipp, a Tier One operator and key member of the

> >> organization, used the opportunity to step onto a soap box and

> >> claim that his actions and his right to them were a pillar of

> >> democratic values that must not be infringed, and that my request

> >> that he "fix" his vote was an assault on these values. That

> >> everything I had done was invalid and undemocratic, and that I had

> >> in some way violated the sacred "democracy" of OpenNIC.

> >>

> >> On a vote as contentious as .front's has been, I wagered that

> >> Philipp would perhaps want the opportunity to think and respond

> >> more critically on the vote than he had, especially with his

> >> considerable position in the organization. In whatever misguided

> >> way I figured the decision validated the request, I was trying to

> >> be polite and give him an opportunity he might have taken for

> >> granted earlier in the vote at our proverbial round table.

> >>

> >> OpenNIC is not a state, but an organization. Perhaps in a democracy

> >> that governs a nation and not servers, Philipp would have a point

> >> about "freedom of speech", the importance of his ability to cast an

> >> inane vote, and the required inflexibility of the rules in place.

> >> But this isn't a parliament or a state house, but a mailing list

> >> for an alternative DNS. More importantly, this is an organization

> >> where flexibility is not just the norm, but an outright sanity

> >> measure that makes working on this project bearable.

> >>

> >> Meanwhile, despite a lengthy comment period of over a months, few

> >> of the users that participated in the vote ever commented or

> >> suggested amendment to the proposal, simply showing up to voice

> >> their disapproval of this addition to the proposal. Some in the IRC

> >> had not even read the proposal, and were under the impression that

> >> the proposal had nothing to do with its stated objective.

> >> Admittedly, this is their right; still, I can't help but regard a

> >> lot of the opposition and even a lot of the support as "arbitrary"

> >> since it was afforded scarce attention before the vote began.

> >>

> >> So with that vote chucked in the bin, the whole .front resolution

> >> fails to pass. I'm sure Philipp will take issue with the fact that

> >> I included a vote cast shortly after the stated end of the ballot

> >> in the tally, but to the credit of that person, his vote was an

> >> intelligible response and at this stage, the ultimate and final

> >> result of the vote remains unchanged. After months of ramblings

> >> about unbreakable Malbolge encrypted domain names, talk of

> >> establishing top level domains for trademarked video game brands,

> >> and a completely stalled effort towards establishing or at least

> >> adopting a Certificate Authority, I had imagined that the .front

> >> proposal backed by members of the already proven team

> >> administrating the .chan top level domain would be a breath of

> >> fresh air.

> >>

> >> I was wrong.

> >>

> >> I don't know what I'll do from here. But I do know that I no longer

> >> have the enthusiasm I did for this project or the hope that I will

> >> be able to accomplish anything meaningful as a member of it. I feel

> >> like I've wasted my time and effort contributing to it, and that

> >> I've wasted the time of others in encouraging others to do the

> >> same. It was a considerable endeavor undertaken by verax and

> >> Pathore to write and deploy an entirely new registration system

> >> capable of supporting registration across multiple TLDs including

> >> .chan, and as of present, I do not feel confident that their time

> >> was well spent.

> >>

> >> That's it.

> >>

> >> --------

> >> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.

> >> You may unsubscribe by emailing

> >> discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org 

> >

> > --

> >

> > Rouben

> >

> > Links:

> > ------

> > [1] http://simplyvoting.com

> >

> >

> > --------

> > You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list.

> > You may unsubscribe by emailing

> > discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org