While participants on this list disagree on many issues, I believe most
will concur on the need for the ICANN Board meetings to be OPEN.
I don't know what model ICANN is using to justify its current board meeting
set-up, but I'd like to outline the one used effectively by our local
government.
Town council (let's say this is your ICANN board) identifies issues that
need examination, clarification, and/or decisionmaking. Those issues are
sent to commissions (let's say these are your SOs) for detailed analysis.
Commissioners gather the facts that are presented in public meetings, which
are held with public notice and a pre-announced agenda. The purpose of the
fact gathering is solely to make an informed recommendation.
The issue under discussion is explained, usually by a proponent, town
official, or expert on the matter. Whatever statistics, charts and
financial statements are necessary to better understand the issue are made
available to the public for review before the meeting. Before the
discussion is open to the public, commissioners may ask questions of the
presenter to flush out questions and further details. Next,the public gets
its turn to make comments, but individuals do not engage in discussion with
the presenter. After the public is hard, the discussion returns to the
commissioners. At this point, no more public input is taken, and each
commissioner discusses his or her concerns and recommendations and reasons
for same. A vote is taken on the record, and the recommendation is sent to
town council.
Town council is not obligated to accept the recommendation of the
commission, which is advisory only but carries significant weight.
Furthermore, the public is given another opportunity to be heard on each of
the issues. In fact, on some issues, a number of public meetings are
necessary because new questions arise. Meeting date set, agenda posted,
issue presented/summarized by some representative, further questions
flushed out by council members, and then it is opened to public discussion,
with about a 3-minute limit per person. After public comments have been
heard, the discussion returns to council members only, where they discuss
(in public but with public interruption at this point) their individual
questions, concerns and recommendations. And then they vote. People who
want to speak unagendized issues are given an opportunity to do so
afterward.
THIS is the public process and the model which I'd like ICANN to follow.
Closed board meetings, with decisions handed to the Internet community
afterward, will engender further distrust. Why would you procede with that
model when the message from most of those who have participated in the
White Paper process--loud, clear, consistent--is to keep the proceedings
open and transparent? If senators and councilpersons can go on record with
the public in attendance, certainly UCANN too.
Dave Farber wrote:
> An open NON-Board meeting is not an OPEN BOARD Meeting.
>
>The public has a right to see how the issues are handled etc in such an
>organization and the best way to ensure that is to have OPEN Board
>meetings.
>
>Sorry,
>
>At 10:09 AM 1/11/99 -0500, Esther Dyson wrote:
>>Yes. It is in our bylaws and in all the public statements we have made.
>>
>>Basically, we could have had "open" board meetings with executive sessions
>>that were closed, but we figured (the Initial Board voted) that this (below)
>>is the best way to do it.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
================================ // ===================================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ ) Tiburon, CA
// \\ "Carpe canine"
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
