Hello Roberto and Dave Farber and all who agree to support OPEN ICANN
BoD MEETINGS and other processes!
I support all OPEN BoD Meeting supporters!
Roberto has the correct analysis at the end of his msg (below). In
fact, as he says, , it might not be the most efficient, but OPEN
processes might
At 12:39 AM 1/13/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Einar Stefferud wrote:
And, in the case of ICANN, I must observe that it is not possible for
one to be efficient in their pursuit, when one one does not know in
any detail how to go about running the Internet from any
Patrick,
You wrote:
The only persons I have
heard defending this position has been the ICANN board itself, IBM(in
Boston), and perhaps some of the other "unamed third parties" that the
ICANN board has been meeting with who will not self identify.
Without being one of the
Jim, Dave and all,
We (INEGroup) too agree with Dave's suggestion. But do you really
believe that the ICANN "Initial" and Interim Board is going to comply?
We don't! We have already lost any respect and have no creditability
in Mike Roberts ( AKA Mike "the Robber Barron" Roberts" as he is
Yes. It is in our bylaws and in all the public statements we have made.
Basically, we could have had "open" board meetings with executive sessions
that were closed, but we figured (the Initial Board voted) that this (below)
is the best way to do it. The meeting on Wednesday is open,and with
Esther,
There is no real problem scheduling an Exec Session for a Board meeting. The PITAC and
all other federal Advisory Boards do that ALL the time. An open NON-Board meeting is
not an OPEN BOARD Meeting.
The public has a right to see how the issues are handled etc in such an organization
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Dave Farber wrote:
If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but is for the
others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to tell us now
those reasons in detail.
Their stated objection to this in Boston was that effective decision
making
What this means is that the Board members are unwilling to expose their reasons and
process to public view. Funny I seem to remember having effective decision making done
in open meetings. If it is the publics business then let it be done in public.
At 08:52 AM 1/11/99 -0800, Patrick
On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Dave Farber wrote:
If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but is for the
others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to tell us now
those reasons in detail.
and Patrick greenwell added:
Their stated objection to this in Boston was that
We seem to have came to a consensus on the ORSC list that a meetng that affects
public policy should be open to the public.
At 11:48 AM 1/11/99 -0500, Gordon Cook wrote:
Dave Farber is absolutely correct Esther. Your reply to Jeff below shows
that up to this point you simply have not heard
To: IFWP Discussion List
Subject: [ifwp] Re: Open Board meetings
What this means is that the Board members are unwilling to expose
their reasons and process to public view. Funny I seem to
remember having effective decision making done in open meetings.
If it is the publics business then let
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Charlie's observation at the Boston ICANN meeting was that the ICANN
board, coming from the corporate world, did now know how to operate
in an open environment.
I love transcripts. From the Boston meeting with thanks to the Berkman
See below.
At 10:03 AM 1/11/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
Charlie's observation at the Boston ICANN meeting was that the ICANN
board, coming from the corporate world, did now know how to operate
in an open environment.
I love transcripts.
Pardon a few typos on my prior message:
After the public is hard, the discussion returns to the
commissioners.
Should read: After the public is heard
[snip]
After public comments have been
heard, the discussion returns to council members only, where they discuss
(in public but with
Partick and all,
Possibly John Patrick or Roger could shed some light on this for us.
John? Roger?
Patrick Greenwell wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Dave Farber wrote:
What this means is that the Board members are unwilling to expose their
reasons and process to public view. Funny I seem
Richard and all,
This is a lame excuse and unexceptable. If you don't know how, than
just ask. The only stupid question is the one you DON'T ask, if they
are worried about appearances. In addition Linda WIlson, Esther Dyson,
Mike Roberts, and Frank Fitzimmons all have public meeting
Wow@!
Let the sunshine in... very very well said Dave.
This can be a turning point! I have my fingers crossed!
Dave Farber said:
It is time to raise the issue yet again of the distressing fact that the
Board meetings of ICANN are closed. Many moons ago several of us strongly
suggested
17 matches
Mail list logo
