[ncdnhc-discuss] Board retreats and fully transparent process for ICANN

[jefsey]

Dear Hendrik,
your point is valid about the process. But remember that we discuss a 
consensual value added service. When you say that there are closed meetings 
with "industry". On the Internet we all are the "industry". There are 
millions of people influencing and being influenced. The problem is the 
confusion between that "industry" and the users. Evacuating them as 
"@large" is already risky, disregarding them is absurd: just because they 
can kick you ass out. What is happening.
jfc



On 13:16 28/05/02, Hendrik Rood said:

>At 23:13 27-5-02 -0400, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:
>
>>         Like other U.S. federal multimember agencies, the U.S. Federal
>>Communications Commission is forbidden closed meetings except in very
>>limited circumstances: where the relevant portion of the meeting would
>>disclose confidential trade secrets, involve accusing a person of a crime,
>>disclose personal information constituting a clearly unwarranted invasion
>>of personal privacy, etc.  The agency can't evade that rule by renaming
>>the meeting a "retreat" and postphoning any formal votes until later.
>>
>>         The fact that the body is allowed *some* closed meetings shouldn't
>>obscure the fact that the agency is not allowed the sort of closed meeting
>>that ICANN is engaging in and that Jamie is criticizing.
>>
>>Jon
>>
>>
>>Jonathan Weinberg
>>Professor of Law, Wayne State University
>>weinberg at msen.com
>
>Jon,
>
>Do you really mean that the 5-person Commission never helds closed 
>meetings with FCC-staff? That is then a major difference with all European 
>National Regulatory Agencies. I am not familiar with any more or less 
>equivalent European Quango (Quasi Autonomous Non-Governmental 
>Organisation) regulating telecommunications (Oftel, RegTP, OPTA, 
>Telestryrelsen, ART etc.) that is as open in its commission-meetings as 
>you claim.
>
>The typical procedures here in Europe when discussing telephone numbering 
>policies and plans are governments/regulators (this differs per country) 
>running "closed" meetings with industry and consumer representations on 
>new proposals. Finished proposals are than published in obliged public 
>consultation procedures according to administrative law. After 
>consultation decisions are made (again not in a public meeting) the 
>decision is published. Interested stakeholders who do not agree with the 
>decision can fight the decision in the court system.
>
>The average experience is that judges hardly decide on the content of a 
>counterclaim but only marginally on the procedure followed. They look if 
>the proper procedure is followed and all parties have been heard 
>sufficiently by the decision making body. They perform this act sometimes 
>by requesting notes and documents, but mainly by scrutinizing the 
>published documents and looking at proper timespans between the different 
>procedural steps.
>
> From an European perspective ICANN's public forums, its scribe notes and 
> webcasts (and also the procedures of many ccTLD's over here) are already 
> far more open than any governmental procedure according to administrative laws.
>
>The essential point here is that what is considered as sufficient 
>"openness" for public bodies and options for disputing decisions is a very 
>varied cultural phenomenon between democratic countries.
>What will be agreed as sufficient for ICANN2 when it evolves into one or 
>another kind of international regime is quite open. I would not bet on the 
>amount of openness of the current ICANN. More recent treaty organisations 
>like the WTO may prove as an example of directions the evolution of 
>international regimes might take.
>
>Kind Regards,
>
>Hendrik Rood
>--
>
>ir. Hendrik Rood
>Senior Consultant
>Stratix Consulting Group BV
>tel: +31 20 44 66 555
>fax: +31 20 44 66 560
>e-mail: Hendrik.Rood at stratix.nl
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02
-------------- next part --------------

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.362 / Virus Database: 199 - Release Date: 07/05/02