On 12 July 1999, Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Since nobody but NC members can participate in the Names Council
>> teleconf.
>
>Are they really being so stupid as to hold yet another closed meeting?
If there is/was a mechanism for active participation/input to this
teleconference, I'm unaware of it. Yes, we can all listen passively
to a simulcast via RealAudio, thanks to the Berkman Center. Assuming,
of course, that you are not stuck behind a firewall and unable to
access such feeds via any method other than an HTTP stream.
Which brings to mind a question I had while sitting at home listening
to the portion of the feed I could before having to get into the
office this morning: Shouldn't the responsibility for making these
meetings open and accessible for both passive listening and active
participation be the responsibility of the pDNC and *not* the Berkman
Center?
Because as things now stand, if there's a question about the openness
(or lack thereof) of these meetings, the pDNC can just point to
Harvard and say, "Talk to them. If there are problems, it's not
something we're handling". That doesn't feel very kosher to me.
>
>Of course that would be a violation of the ICANN bylaws that require open
>meetings "to the maximum extent".
Well, apparently "open" in this context means those with a certain
level of technology and access are free to listen helplessly while
the pDNC makes decisions, erroneous statements, and claims of having
"consensus" while we are powerless to interject and/or correct in
any manner, be it rationally and calmly or otherwise.
>
>There is *NOTHING* that they can be talking about that requires a closed
>session. The names council has no personel matters to discuss, no
>contracts being negotiated.
Well, there's the matter of who's going to chair all of the WGs. By the
time I had to leave for work, they had decided that the pDNC would appoint
a chair, but would deign to allow the WG to perhaps elect a co-chair.
What power this co-chair would have w.r.t. the pDNC-elected chair is
unclear. However, there were several in favor of not allowing the
WGs any say in their chairs.
>
>> If they expect any feeling of legitimacy whatsoever from the GA
>
>How about from anybody?
>
>Closed meetings are an insult to all of us, a violation of the organic
>documents, and fly in the face of NTIA's letter to Congressman Bliley.
You know what's missing here? A well-organized, clear, and very very
public paper trail. Oh sure, the documents exist. But they are not
all in one place, where things like this become readily apparent.
We're not only condemned to repeating our history, we're doing it
at net speed.
--
Mark C. Langston Let your voice be heard:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA http://www.dnso.org
