Re: "Balancing" Was: Re: [ga] nominations

["J. Baptista" <baptista@pccf.net>]

Thank you Karl.  I have nothing to dispute here.  Just want to speak out
that I fully approve of your position.

Oley Karl, if you get my drift.  Excellent response - well balanced and
most important to me to the point.

On Mon, 20 Sep 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:

> "Feasible" means something completly different to the lazy man than it
> does to the person who is motivated.
> 
> Openness and transparency are fundamental issues.
> 
> They are not to be "balanced" into meaninglessness.
> 
> There is virtually nothing that ICANN is doing, outside of personnel
> matters, that deserves any secrecy whatsoever.
> 
> Certainly not the consideration of whether to extend board terms.
> 
> Certainly not the decision to race the WIPO proposals.
> 
> Certainly not the decision to dismember the at-large membership.
> 
> Certainly not the decision to enter into a CRADA (CREDA) agreement with
> the US government, the real purpose of which is still secret.
> 
> Certainly not the decision to ignore the IDNO constituency petitions.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> The current board members don't want us to see them making choices.  But
> that's what transparency is all about.  If someone on the board doesn't
> feel comfortable with letting the world know how that person is deciding
> issues of internet governance, than that board members should step aside
> and let someone else take the seat.
> 
> ICANN is not a for-profit business that is trying to compete and needs a
> degree of secrecy.
> 
> ICANN *is* internet government and we need to see every detail of its
> operation except those pertaining to personnel.
> 
> And that need is not answered by the theatrical performance entitled
> "an open board meeting" that happend a couple of weeks ago.
> 
> No, "balance" is not acceptable.
> 
> Full, open, transparent, and now that we are getting some new board
> members, accountable is the standard.  It is not a standard to be
> "balanced"  away.
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
> 
>