Jim and all,
We agree completely with these points that Jim Dixon is
stating here and have on many occasions stated such to
the ICANN Interim Board members as well as the NTIA,
as we do so again here in this response.
Jim Dixon wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Feb 1999, Bill Lovell wrote:
>
> > >> (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.
>
> This isn't just any board. This is the ICANN board, which is in a
> unique position of global public trust; which wishes to take a central
> role in administering the Internet, with its traditions of openness;
> ... and which has refused to make any of its proceedings public, offering
> a number of points which boil down to "we would not be comfortable if
> people knew what we think". One of the board members said in Boston
> that if the board's meetings had to be open, they would just make all
> of their decisions outside of the meetings. In other words, they are
> above the rules.
>
> The first two points are sufficient to require that the ICANN board's
> meetings should be open. The third makes it clear that if there are
> any loopholes, the ICANN board will use them to keep the real decision
> making private. Under these circumstances, what is needed are strong
> rules requiring the board's proceedings to be completely open, and
> forbidding the kind of back room dealings that they prefer.
>
> The alternative is a continuation of the status quo, in which there is
> precious little trust in ICANN and its board.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council Telecommunications Director
> Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
