Re: [ga] Response to Bret

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

Gary and all assembly members,

  Gary, thank you for you support on this in your comments below.
Transparency is very important if ICANN is to remain viable
and representative of the stakeholder/user Internet community
as well as business and other interest areas.  Right now it seems
that Joe does not know how to accomplish providing transparency
or just doesn't agree that transparency is necessary.

  I personally believe that is it clear that Joe and Vint are from the
Old School of "Old Boy" network method of accomplishing and
addressing the Transparency requirement.  Problem with this
sort of approach is the in the Internet world this just doesn't
work and can backfire on you accordingly, leaving ICANN
in a position of growing distrust and dismay by the vast
majority of stakeholders/users...

Gary Osbourne wrote:

> At 07:44 PM 28/05/02 -0400, Joe Sims wrote:
>
> >This point is impossible to argue, so those who argue for their
> >peculiar brand of transparency apparently simply don't care
> >about this effect.  They would rather have the "benefits" of a
> >homogenized public discussion than the benefits that almost
> >surely flow from candid conversations about complex subjects.
>
> I don't know if I'm one of those who want some
> peculiar brand of transparency. I do know that
> "to the maximum extent feasible" is at odds with
> Vint Cerf repeatedly telling Karl Auerbach to
> "take it offline" at Stockholm. It wasn't Karl
> doing the homogenizing. I also don't think your
> trip to Europe to discuss ICANN reform without
> the knowledge, let alone the vote, of at least
> some of the BoD members was particularily
> transparent. Was there some valid, logical reason
> for keeping it from them? If so, surely it can be
> made public now.
>
> I've served on numerous not-for-profit Boards
> going back over 30 years, some of them dealing
> with quite contentious matters. Only rarely would
> one go in camera to deal with sensitive items
> such as personnel, litigation, or something
> contained in an NDA, for example. There were also
> committees of the whole where directors could
> express themselves without fear of being quoted
> later. That is all understandable and reasonable
> to me, though I will add that the inclusion of
> staff or lawyers in camera was only if absolutely
> necessary to a specific topic, and neither were
> ever included in committee of the whole (a mini-
> retreat as it were) so that discussion needn't
> be homogenized on their account, as they aren't,
> by definition, part of the 'whole'.
>
> I didn't have a problem with that as ultimately
> people were held responsible, proper minutes were
> kept, including who voted for or against or
> abstained, and these minutes were ratified and
> published in a timely fashion. I've never seen
> (whether from orgs that dwarf ICANN by any metric
> but global impact, or from village PTA meetings)
> such sparce and tardy minutes as eventually come
> out of ICANN Excom and Special meetings.
>
> Combined with sudden surprises out of nowhere
> like the Verisign renegotiation, ICP-3, and the
> Roadmap to Reform, none of which the community
> were expecting, let alone requesting, how can
> such secrecy be seen as "consistent with
> procedures designed to ensure fairness"? What
> we have with the ICANN not-for-profit is an org
> that uses secrecy as its default mode, and only
> opens up if, when, where, and to the extent
> that it absolutely has to.
>
> That does not instill or sustain trust that all
> parties' interests are being dealt with fairly,
> so any additional non-open, non-transparent
> meetings are bound to be suspect as just leading
> to more, perhaps unfair, surprises. What I find
> peculiar is that you find such suspicion peculiar.
>
> There's something I learned in school, and I know
> I'm not the only one. If you hand in what you hope
> is the right answer but you can't show your work,
> the default is to assume that you're cheating. If
> you're lucky, you can convince them you're guessing.
>
> There are a number of valid, logical reasons why a
> number of diverse affected parties, including those
> who (s)elect BoD members, would like to know if the
> BoD answers are just being cribbed from its staff
> and lawyer. In absence of evidence to the contrary,
> that seems to be the default, and safest, assumption.
>
> That it is a lawyer and staff here now showing their
> work, rather than Board members (other than Karl,
> does this count as offline?), leaves only one
> question, is the Board cheating or just guessing
> when it comes to reform? It's all academic anyway.
> both rate an F. -g
>
> --
> 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@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