please send comments on this draft RE: Transparency

[Alex Gakuru]

Perhaps suggest the embodiment and application of Freedom of
Information principles all round?

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:52 AM, Alex Gakuru <gakuru at gmail.com> wrote:
> Great statement!
>
> Many community members also feel discouraged from participating in
> lengthy and quite involving policy processes where the final output is
> not shown to them or is secretly moulded or submitted to the Board. A
> staff's upper hand and final say  scenario is bad for the community
> and the Board and can only be interpreted as only good for themselves.
>
> regards,
>
> Alex
>
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:
>> Below is first draft joint NCSG-ALAC statement on the need for transparency
>> of the Secret Board Briefings.
>> The stmt isn't something that we would release or publish this week.
>>  However, Avri and I may meet with  ALAC this afternoon to discuss this
>> draft.  So please send any comments on this draft so we can bring those into
>> this mtg today in a few hours.  We will have a revised draft after the mtg.
>>  Thank you.
>> Robin
>> -------
>> For many meetings now,  the topic of Staff Briefing to the Board and
>> Transparency has been on the table.
>> While understanding that there indeed some briefings that should remain
>> confidential between the Board and the Staff especially those within its
>> fiduciary capacities and those encumbered by personal privacy consideration,
>> there are also many issues that require transparency.
>> Within the categories that require transparency there are two separate types
>> of issue.
>> The first type are briefings that concern an Advisory Committee or a
>> Supporting Organization.  In the case of this type of briefing, it is not
>> appropriate for the Staff to be making unverified claims about and AC or SO
>> without the knowledge of that AC and SO.  Without AC or SO verification of
>> the contents of a briefing, the Board is left making its evaluation based on
>> rumor and may make decisions based on erroneous information.
>> The second type of briefing are those that concern the policy work for which
>> the SOs are responsible and on which the ACs must advise.  For the Board to
>> be making policy decision based on information that has not been reviewed by
>> the community constitutes gaming of the bottom up policy process and gives
>> one member of the community, the paid staff and undue advantage over the
>> other participants in the community.
>> We request that the Board change its policy so that the briefing of the
>> types discussed above be made available to the correct audience; the first
>> type being made available to the SO or AC in question and the second type be
>> made available to the community.
>> After the policy has been received we request that recent briefings that
>> have contributed to various decisions also be released.
>>
>>
>> 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     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>>
>>
>>
>