So it doesn't get lost in the high traffic from the last week, I'd like
to resurrect Jock Gill's post below on the necessity for access to
records. Speaking for myself (and not for the AIP -- though I am
cross-posting to their list for their input), I think it's an excellent
point, and I would suggest that any SO proposal include a provision
stating something like:
"All records of the DNSO (including, but not limited
to, Reports and Recommendations to ICANN and all drafts
of such Reports, minutes from all DNSO committee meetings
and public hearings, comments and proposals received
from third-parties, and mailing list archives) shall be
maintained and preserved on-line."
If we keep all records of the SOs (proposals, drafts, list archives)
online in perpetuity, we make the Freedom of Information process
self-effectuating; anyone who wants information simply reviews and copies
it. No formal request or response is required. While the server space
needed to maintain this will grow very large over time (the mailing list
archive from these groups is going to be no small matter!), the costs of
keeping the records on-line will be far cheaper than having to hire
someone to maintain them the old-fashioned way and respond to FOIA-like
requests the old fashioned way.
We shouldn't allow this move toward private self-regulation to cause us
to lose the hard-won gains of openness and transparency guaranteed by the
Freedom of Information Act. Perhaps we'll need an exception for private
personnel matters, but everything related to policy-making ought to go up
on the web and stay up.
I think there ought to be consensus on this. Anyone disagree?
-- Bret
Jock Gill wrote:
>Please make sure that any DNS solution includes fundamentals such as:
>
>Open Meetings
>Records management requirements -- throw nothing out.
>Freedom of Information Act access to all records [FOIA]
>Prompt electronic publishing of ALL _public_ documents [same day = prompt]
>
>If these rules are good enough for government agencies, they are good
>enough for
>ICANN, DNSO etc.
>
>If these rules are rejected, it is another argument that the rejecting
>organizations are NOT about the good of the public.
>
>Regards,
>
>Jock
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
