Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

[jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Michael,
reasonable words come from you, Brett and Joe. But let remember that the 
ICANN main "product" is transparency. Many States and people are influenced 
in their day to day business and private life by the BoD decisions. They 
need to know if they can trust them and to protect their interest in knowing.

1. there were actions this WE. And some decisions. One has been reported: 
that the BoD is to look for a successor to Stuart. After Joe said there was 
nothing to report.

2. there were actions this WE; the BoD met with non BoD people. Not what 
they said, but what they were told and what they discussed about should 
have been reported. Question right now is simple: the ICANN II or several 
alternatives to the ICANN. I am afraid the current attitude will not help 
ICANN II.

3. I noted - as probably many Chancelleries did - that the ICANN legal 
adviser plainly compares the ICANN to "other" Federal Agencies.
jfc

On 04:34 29/05/02, Michael D. Palage said:
>Although not a frequent poster to the GA, I do try to monitor the traffic in
>my free time. I would like to offer my personal insight on the current
>discussion between Bret and Joe with regard to the scope and interpretation
>of open and transparent. During my over three years of involvement in the
>ICANN process the most defining moment I experienced occurred during Paul
>Twomey's GAC presentation at the Berlin meeting, specifically his response
>spanning 1 hour and 16 minutes to 1 hour and 22 minutes. See
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/berlin/archive/ His comments provide a
>rather interesting backdrop to Bret and Joe's discussion.
>
>I agree with many of the arguments raised by both Joe and Bret. Based upon
>my personal experience I find myself somewhere in between both positions. As
>Chair of the Registrar Constituency, I believe that the open and transparent
>model by which the registrars have operated is far and a way superior to
>some of the clandestine operations of other constituencies. However, the
>open and transparent model has at times prevented us from engaging in
>meaningful dialogue to resolve complex problems. As the constituency has
>evolved, the Registrar Executive Committee has held weekly teleconferences.
>Although the minutes from these meetings are made available to the
>constituency, the conversations are not publicly available. In addition, the
>registrar executive committee has created a mailing list which is not
>achieved or publicly available. These non-publicly accessible communication
>exchanges were not done to circumvent any open and transparent process. In
>fact there is minimum discussion that takes here, the majority of
>correspondence takes place on the general registrar mailing list which many
>GA members monitor.
>
>Based upon the recent litigation between BulkRegister and VRSN, and the
>threat of other litigation involving other registrars I believe that the
>open and transparent communication between registrars could be threatened.
>It is with this insight that I understand the arguments put forward by Joe
>and Paul Twomey over three years ago.
>
>Turning to Bret's arguments, I must admit that on more than a few occasions
>(see LA 99 and Melbourne 01 meetings) I have rather strenuously disagreed
>with the positions put forth by ICANN and ICANN Staff. I share many people's
>concern about the leap of faith we are collectively being asked to take in
>connection with a yet uncertain and very powerful nominating committee.
>However, the alternative of existing in the current model is in my opinion
>not a viable alternative. The current bureaucratic nightmare has prevented
>meaningful issues from being resolved in a timely manner to the detriment of
>registration authorities and end users.
>
>In the end, the comments of Paul Twomey over three years ago are rather
>ominous, if ICANN fails there are bureaucrats eagerly waiting to step in and
>take it over, and in that scenario how may of us will even be provided a
>soap box to speak?
>
>Just my two cents.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Michael D. Palage
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02