At 10:25 AM 2/1/99 +0000, you wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
>
>> A bit more complication:
>> (a) I don't believe everyone wants to be involved in a meeting at which the
>> ICANN Board decides which vendors to use, where the parking places
>> should be, etc. (These examples are of course highly exaggerated.) The
>> poll might qualify its meaning of ICANN BOARD MEETINGS to mean
>> those, I assume, of a fundamental policy nature.
>
>This is the BOARD of the corporation. These are directors, not officers.
>They should NOT be assiging parking places and selecting vendors. Their
>job is setting policy.
>
>If the ICANN board is fiddling around with detailed administrative
>questions, we should know about it. So, yes, ICANN board meetings
>devoted to this sort of question should be open, so that we can remind
>them forcefully what their job is: setting policy.
>
Well, I guess I didn't stress the tongue-in-cheek, exaggerated nature of
my examples enough -- past midnight the brain goes. The point is that
corporate officers DO bring administrative issues to boards, or a board
member sees something he doesn't like and raises it -- matters that
are really internal to the management. My suggestion simply boils
down to: "open" and "closed" need to clarify to what kinds of meetings
reference is being made. This little thingee here is not rocket science.
Bill Lovell
