> ...say things like "open is open", like it was some kind of
> absolute characteristic, instead of the rather vague relative
> charactistic it actually is.
My metric is this:
A system is "open" if there is a means for an effective two-way dialog
between "outsiders" and the body which is purported to be "open".
It doesn't mean that meetings have to have open doors and seats available.
(Here in Santa Cruz that sort of thing generally results in a meeting
packed with our cadre of professional homeless people, oops I've been
politically incorrect, I hear the VW busses descending as I type. They
are going to subject me to intense aroma therapy, oh no! ;-)
I focus on the words "effective" and "two-way" as the key values. A
hearing of prepared statements made before a board which has already made
up its mind is not "open".
I would note, however, that I don't see that ICANN has any special reason
to have meetings which have doors taht are closed to well behaved
observers. Yes, things like personnal matters need to be close, but those
are the exceptions not the norm.
As for "transparent" -- the thing that I focus on there is that there be
means by which those who vote can know what they are voting about. If we
are voting for directors, an elector needs to be able to see how that
director operates, how that director makes decisions and what weights that
director puts on things.
That doesn't mean that every single meeting needs to be attended by
crowds. But it does mean that we need to know what the individual
directors do, how they vote, what bargains they may have made for their
votes (i.e. quid-pro-quo, you vote for my item and I'll vote for yours),
etc.
--karl--
