> At 07:15 AM 2/4/99 -0600, Eric Weisberg wrote:
> >We have already reached consensus on the need for "open and
> >transparent" processes (we were UNANIMOUS on this at Reston), and
>
> Eric, those terms are both important and imprecise.
>
> The IETF has, perhaps, the most successful and widely accepted large-scale
> decision mechanism extant and it is considered to be open and transparent.
The IETF is a fairly homogenious body.
I've watched outsiders try to deal with it.
>From their point of view it is often neither open, transparent, nor fair.
(As a case in point -- the actions of the IAB that amounted to an
endorsement of the IANA ICANN proposals back in August was something done
very much in the black.)
The IETF is not a model of governance when there are complex, contentious,
soft (non-technical) issues involved.
> >they are required by our charter and our sponsor (the USG). It is
> >time for us to meet those criteria.
>
> It is time to pay attention to the pragmatics that reality has an
> unfortunate tendency of imposing on the world, if the world wishes to make
> forward progress.
In other words, let's use the old argument of "expediency" to justify a
wrong act.
No, open and transparent mean exactly what they say -- open and
transparent.
Closed meetings are not open.
Lack of ability for the membership to know exactly who is responsible for
what action within ICANN is a failure of transparency.
Putting it another way -- the members need to know who to elect or who to
send packing at the next election.
--karl--
