I think if there was agreement amongst the interim board members that
this -was- the public's business, there would be no problem.
David Schutt
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Dave
> Farber
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 1999 11:19 AM
> To: IFWP Discussion List
> Subject: [ifwp] Re: Open Board meetings
>
>
> What this means is that the Board members are unwilling to expose
> their reasons and process to public view. Funny I seem to
> remember having effective decision making done in open meetings.
> If it is the publics business then let it be done in public.
>
>
>
> At 08:52 AM 1/11/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> >On Sun, 10 Jan 1999, Dave Farber wrote:
> >
> >> If there is a reason why this is not appropriate for ICANN but
> is for the
> >> others , I think the ICANN Board owes it to the community to
> tell us now
> >>those reasons in detail.
> >
> >Their stated objection to this in Boston was that effective decision
> >making cannot be done in open board meetings, and if forced to do so, all
> >decisions would be made elsewhere and the board meeting would be window
> >dressing.
> >
> >
> >/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\
> >Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v
> > CTO (925) 377-1212 v
> > NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f
> >Coming to the ISPF-II? The Forum for ISPs by ISPs
http://www.ispf.com
>\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
/\/
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
