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

[Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law]

I might add that we have very similar rules here in Florida, known as the
"Government in the Sunshine" laws.

A number of county legislators were fined a few years ago for
participating in a lunch and a conference call during which matters
pertaining to their duties were discussed.  "The law, in essence, is
applicable to any gathering, whether formal or casual, of two or more
members of the same board or commission to discuss some matter on which
foreseeable action will be taken by the public board or commission. There
is no requirement that a quorum be present for a meeting to be covered
under the law. "  http://legal.firn.edu/sunshine/faq.html

In practice the fines are just a few hundred dollars, but it makes for
ugly headlines.

The idea that the full city or county commission could have a
'retreat' to talk business, even if no formal decisions were made, is
simply inconceivable here.

However, I think the central issue here is a different one from the
question of technicalities. The ICANN Board wishes us to take a great deal
on faith - they are about to unveil a revised structure in which the key
power center will be a nominating committee that the staff/board will
select.  If this is how they implement their **self-imposed** obligation
of maximal transparency, we have a right -- even a duty -- to say, "sorry,
you have forfeited our trust".


On Tue, 28 May 2002, Jonathan Weinberg wrote:

> On Tue, 28 May 2002, Hendrik Rood wrote:
> > 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.
> > > [snip]
> 
> > 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.
> 
> 	Actually, that's exactly what I mean.  The Commissioners meet
> individually with staff (and with industry members), but three
> Commissioners may not meet to discuss agency business except in a public
> meeting.  Whether this is a Good Thing is open to debate; the efficacy of
> open-meeting rules turns out to depend a lot on particular institutional
> context.  In the case of the FCC, the rule means that the locus of
> decision-making shifts, in important degree, from meetings among
> Commissioners to meetings among Commissioners' staffers; it's hardly
> obvious that that's an improvement.  So open-meetings laws are hardly a
> panacea, even in the U.S. where they are more common.  But when it comes
> to ICANN's "retreats," my own view, as a policy matter, is that the need
> for transparency stemming from ICANN's legitimacy deficit far outweighs
> the disadvantages.
> 
> Jon
> 
> 
> Jonathan Weinberg
> weinberg at msen.com
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 

-- 
		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's hot here.<--