At 01:25 PM 3/13/99 -0500, Dave Farber wrote:
>Dave, We disagree on this issue and most likely will continue to disagree.
>I believe the ICANN, the IAB etc meetings should be open. It is the best
>defense for all concerned against anti-trust, cartel etc accusations. I
>happen to like the US rules for federal committees. EFF, ISOC and others
>manage to operate that way as does the PITAC and many other groups.
The statement of legal concern is, I believe, lacking in case law basis.
Remember that the underlying work of the IETF, via working groups, and
ICANN, via the SOs, will be entirely open. As such, most of the work in
the closed meetings is for review of the public processes. Such
discussions benefit from candor. Public discussion is not conducive to
candor; it is conducive to posturing.
Case law on standards groups attends to demonstration of arbitrariness or
bias. It does not press for open decision meetings.
Again:
We need to be careful that we not fix problems that don't
exist. Lots of lawyers have been involved in the formation of ICANN (and
in reviewing the operation of the IETF) and they do not see the legal
problem you are so concerned about.
As to protecting against the political attacks, it should be
obvious at this point that there is no such protection from them. Those
wishing to attack, do. They always will. They do not care about making
progress, they care about delay or providing themselves with a platform for
exerting their own power and gaining their own publicity.
The way to make ICANN succeed is to focus on the work of ICANN, not the
fear of those wishing to attack it.
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
