Hello Roberto and Dave Farber and all who agree to support OPEN ICANN
BoD MEETINGS and other processes!
I support all OPEN BoD Meeting supporters!
Roberto has the correct analysis at the end of his msg (below). In
fact, as he says, , it might not be the most efficient, but OPEN
processes might be the most effective way to deal with the public's
business.
ICANN is messing with my stakeholder's interests, and with yours, and
and those of others!
They OWE us proper consideration of our concerns and this includes
letting us see what they are doing and how the are doing it. In
short, since it is our business that they are making decisions about,
we must be entitled to see into what they are doing.
Now, I find it very interesting that every time Esther or Mike or any
other ICANN BoD Member responds to our questions and rumors and
challenges, the ICANN response tends very strongly to have the
character of trying to shut down the discussion thread, with a very
strong flavor of "applied damage control"! The goal appears to be to
quickly end the discussion, hopefully without having to actually
explain anyting in any detail!
Reminds me very much of other groups that have been involved in this
mess in the past who spent vastly more money and energy on damage
control than on listening or openly discussing.
So, I am totally for OPEN and TRANSPARENT ICANN and SO processes!
And, as such I totally support Dave Farber's recommendations for
ICANN's use of US Federal Guidelines, especially because those
guidelines are time tested over many years of real use. They might
not be totally efficient, but the are very effective.
And, in the case of ICANN, I must observe that it is not possible for
one to be efficient in their pursuit, when one one does not know in
any detail how to go about running the Internet from any location.
ICANN certainly has no experience with controlling or managing or
coordinating cooperation in any Internet!
Until now, Internet "efficiency" has been subordinate to Internet
"effectiveness" and this is especially so because no one knows how to
manage the required cooperative coordination in any other way. And,
even so, the Internet is vastly cheaper to use than any other
telephony product known to man.
So, "management efficiency" is the last thing we are looking for at
this point in time. Consider the great questions of how "efficient"
it is for ICANN to be generating all this ill will and distrust.
Where is the "efficiency" in that?
And where is the "effectiveness" in that???
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Tue, 12 Jan 1999 14:38:30 +0100:
}
}Patrick,
}
}You wrote:
}
} .... The only persons I have
}> heard defending this position has been the ICANN board itself, IBM(in
}> Boston), and perhaps some of the other "unamed third parties" that the
}> ICANN board has been meeting with who will not self identify.
}>
}Without being one of the "unnamed third parties", at a certain point in time
}I posted on this list a comment, stating that I found reasonable ICANN's
}position that the Board meetings should not be held in public, but that all
}the results and decisions should be made public, together with the
}statements of the rationale for the decisions and the voting records (if
}vote occurred).
}
}The reason comes from observing that business companies and governments do
}the same.
}I agree with Hans (calling him by first name does not denote familiarity,
}but ignorance of the correct spelling of his last name) when he said in
}Boston that if the Board meeting will take place in the open, the
}"negotiations" will take place beforehand.
}
}I am still convinced of the last sentence (and, BTW, the examples that I got
}back in aswer to my posting at that time still do not convince me that USG
}decisions are taken in public debates) but I understand that open Board
}meetings (preceded by unavoidable closed discussions) can be perceived to be
}the lesser evil (or whatever you say in English).
}
}I still maintain that this way of conducting business is less effective, but
}I agree that will build trust. If the latter is the problem, we could
}sacrifice some performance to the transparency.
}
}Regards
}Roberto
}
}
}__________________________________________________
}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____________________________________________
}
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
