Re: [ga] Open and Transparent

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

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.
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).

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. There 
is a risk that the overall reform discussion becomes disjointed
if every group discusses internally what they want. This
is why I would like more Board members to talk about the
current state of thinking within the Board.

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