Fwd: [council] GNSO letter to the ICANN Board regarding Public Participation

[Adam Peake]

Some questions that are actually directed at 
staff or only staff can answer.  They are always 
being called up during the open forums.  So long 
as it's said at the time that a named staff 
person will take the question away, the 
questioner agrees, and staff will post the 
question and answer, then should be fine.

Important that the person asking has the 
opportunity to agree to having their question 
taken in that way.

Perhaps add a sentence so the relevant part reads:

It is also noted that ICANN staff, under 
direction of the Chairman, allowed for questions 
to be posted after the Meeting and subsequently 
answered by appropriate staff. The GNSO Council 
applauds this innovation particularly with the 
staff providing responses to direct questions. 
*However, questions should only be deferred in 
this way with the agreement of the person asking 
the question during the open forum.*

Make sense?

Adam



>I agree with Norbert's statement whole-heartedly.
>
>Robin
>
>On Feb 4, 2009, at 8:10 AM, Norbert Klein wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday, 4 February 2009 22:53:04 Milton L Mueller wrote:
>>
>>
>>I agree, this is a very important, fundamental point:
>>
>>if the functions and roles of board and staff are not clearly seen as what
>>they are - very separate levels of responsibility - it is easy that the
>>control of certain processes gets located at the wrong level.
>>
>>And the fact that the GNSO Council took the fact that there was limited
>>communication between the ICANN public at the Cairo meeting and the Board as
>>an occasion to write to the Board and appeal for rectification, shows also
>>the opinion that it is important to uphold the role of the Board against all
>>dangers of being weakened.
>>
>>I am more interested what the Board hears and decides, than what is reported
>>to be "the opinion of some [unnamed] people at ICANN."
>>
>>
>>Norbert Klein
>>
>>=
>>
>>>I would support Avri's statement for the most part. My only quibble would
>>>be to be careful about this: " ICANN staff, under direction of the
>>>Chairman, allowed for questions to be posted after the Meeting and
>>>subsequently answered by appropriate staff."
>>>
>>>While obviously staff should answer questions directed to them, i would not
>>>want to encourage ICANN to treat this kind of staff mediation as a
>>>_substitute_ for direct interaction with the Board at Public Forums
>>>
>>>Milton Mueller
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>If you want to know what is going on in Cambodia, please visit
>>The Mirror, a regular review of the Cambodian language press in English.
>>
>>This is the latest weekly editorial:
>>
>>Censorship: Thousands of Crude Porn Sites Accessible on Internet - One Khmer
>>Artist Blocked
>><http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/censorship-thousands-of-crude-porn-sites-accessible-on-internet-%E2%80%93-one-khmer-artist-blocked-sunday-122009/>http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/censorship-thousands-of-crude-porn-sites-accessible-on-internet-%E2%80%93-one-khmer-artist-blocked-sunday-122009/
>>(To read it, click on the line above.)
>>
>>And here is something new every day:
>><http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com>http://cambodiamirror.wordpress.com 
>>(English)
>><http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com>http://kanhchoksangkum.wordpress.com 
>>(Khmer)
>>
>>PGP key-id 0x0016D0A9
>>
>
>
>
>
>IP JUSTICE
>Robin Gross, Executive Director
>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>w: 
><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org 
> e: <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>robin at ipjustice.org