Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

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

Alex and all assembly members,

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> At 28.05.2002 22:34, Michael D. Palage wrote:
> >I agree with many of the arguments raised by both Joe and Bret.
>
> So do I. I understand both the desire to have access to
> literally everything said by the Board and the desire for
> opportunities to have in-depth discussions in private.

  Of course many of us here understand the desire of the
BOD to have opportunities to have in-depth discussions
in private.  That however, is not the WHOLE point
of disagreement or distrust.  What is, is that such
discussions should not be done IF what is to be
discussed is related to ICANN ongoing activities
or potential policy issues.

> Realistically, if the Board presented us e.g. 30 hour-long
> MP3 files, a few people would listen to them, transcribe
> the juicy bits and use them later to point to apparent
> contradictions: "But on the Long Island meeting, you said
> you didn't like seven NomCom members." I believe what
> would happen is that the discussions would continue
> during lunch break, over the phone or by private e-mails.
> And as has been remarked on the NCDNHC list, from a
> European perspective, ICANN is considerably more open
> than e.g. regulatory bodies in the telecom sector (FCC
> counterparts).

  Well I can attest for FCC meetings.  I cannot for
other regulatory body's of similar nature to any great
certanty.  I doubt that you can either, Alex.  What
I can say with pretty good confidence of those that
I have been involved with in the past and presently,
the FCC is usually their model in the area of
Openness and transparency as a similar regulatory
body...

>
>
> The problem in this case is that the Board now has a sense
> of what reform plans they like and dislike, and we only
> have Andy's short but helpful account of the discussions.

  Not accurate here Alex.  We have Joe's and Karl's as well
now also.  Perhaps you haven't been paying close enough
attention...???

> There
> is a risk that the overall reform discussion becomes disjointed
> if every group discusses internally what they want.

  This CAN or MAY occur, and than again it MAY Not
occur as well.  Hence you are oversimplifying or potentially
mischaracterizing a forgone conclusion prior to such
occurring...  That IMHO, makes this fallacious reasoning...

> This
> is why I would like more Board members to talk about the
> current state of thinking within the Board.

  I agree with you completely here.  And this has been
a problem with the ICANN BOD and staff from the
onset.  It remains a serious problem now...  But we
have an old saying down here in Texas, "you can lead
a horse to water, but you can't make them drink"...

>
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> 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

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