[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board retreats and fully transparent process for ICANN

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Hendrik and all,

Hendrik Rood wrote:

> At 23:13 27-5-02 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
> >         Like other U.S. federal multimember agencies, the U.S. Federal
> >Communications Commission is forbidden closed meetings except in very
> >limited circumstances: where the relevant portion of the meeting would
> >disclose confidential trade secrets, involve accusing a person of a crime,
> >disclose personal information constituting a clearly unwarranted invasion
> >of personal privacy, etc.  The agency can't evade that rule by renaming
> >the meeting a "retreat" and postphoning any formal votes until later.
> >
> >         The fact that the body is allowed *some* closed meetings shouldn't
> >obscure the fact that the agency is not allowed the sort of closed meeting
> >that ICANN is engaging in and that Jamie is criticizing.
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >Jonathan Weinberg
> >Professor of Law, Wayne State University
> >weinberg@msen.com
>
> Jon,
>
> Do you really mean that the 5-person Commission never helds closed meetings
> with FCC-staff?

  No Jamie did not mean this.  I thought he was pretty clear that closed
FCC Staff meetings on public issues are rare and under certain
sets of very specific rules governing the holding of such closed
meetings...

> That is then a major difference with all European National
> Regulatory Agencies. I am not familiar with any more or less equivalent
> European Quango (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation) regulating
> telecommunications (Oftel, RegTP, OPTA, Telestryrelsen, ART etc.) that is
> as open in its commission-meetings as you claim.

  This is really not germane to ICANN.  ICANN is a California
Corporation.  California is a state in the United States.  Hence
such meetings on public issues dealing with public resources
are almost always OPEN and usually recorded.

>
>
> The typical procedures here in Europe when discussing telephone numbering
> policies and plans are governments/regulators (this differs per country)
> running "closed" meetings with industry and consumer representations on new
> proposals. Finished proposals are than published in obliged public
> consultation procedures according to administrative law. After consultation
> decisions are made (again not in a public meeting) the decision is
> published. Interested stakeholders who do not agree with the decision can
> fight the decision in the court system.
>
> The average experience is that judges hardly decide on the content of a
> counterclaim but only marginally on the procedure followed. They look if
> the proper procedure is followed and all parties have been heard
> sufficiently by the decision making body. They perform this act sometimes
> by requesting notes and documents, but mainly by scrutinizing the published
> documents and looking at proper timespans between the different procedural
> steps.
>
>  From an European perspective ICANN's public forums, its scribe notes and
> webcasts (and also the procedures of many ccTLD's over here) are already
> far more open than any governmental procedure according to administrative laws.
>
> The essential point here is that what is considered as sufficient
> "openness" for public bodies and options for disputing decisions is a very
> varied cultural phenomenon between democratic countries.
> What will be agreed as sufficient for ICANN2 when it evolves into one or
> another kind of international regime is quite open. I would not bet on the
> amount of openness of the current ICANN. More recent treaty organisations
> like the WTO may prove as an example of directions the evolution of
> international regimes might take.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Hendrik Rood
> --
>
> ir. Hendrik Rood
> Senior Consultant
> Stratix Consulting Group BV
> tel: +31 20 44 66 555
> fax: +31 20 44 66 560
> e-mail: Hendrik.Rood@stratix.nl
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 124k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html