please send comments on this draft RE: Transparency

[Rafik Dammak]

Hello there,

I think that we need to be direct and not be so diplomatic, by highlighting
that constitutes gaming and the problem is because those staff reports
addressed to the board.  I am not favor of striking those parts.

Regards

Rafik

2010/3/11 Debra Hughes <HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org>

>  All,
>
> I understand you may be meeting with ALAC about this now; so my comments
> are below in *red*.
>
> Debbie
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> For many meetings now,  the topic of Staff Briefing to the Board and
> Transparency has been on the table. *– I agree with Mary’s comments below
> about this leading sentence.*
>
>
>
> 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 issues.
>
>
>
> The first type is 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 is 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 makeing policy decision*s* based on information that has not
> been reviewed by the community *seems contrary to the principle of
> transparency and equal access that are at the core *constitutes gaming of
> the bottom up policy process and *could *give*s* 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.
>
>
>
>
>
> *Debra Y. Hughes** l** Senior Counsel*
> *American Red Cross*
>
> Office of the General Counsel
> 2025 E Street, NW
> Washington, D.C. 20006
> Phone: (202) 303-5356
> Fax: (202) 303-0143
> HughesDeb at usa.redcross.org
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:
> NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:03 AM
> *To:* NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>
> *Subject:* please send comments on this draft RE: Transparency
>
>
>
> Great effort, thanks Robin & Avri, and it's an excellent idea to have this
> as a joint statement with ALAC. Just a few specific comments for now:
>
>
>
> - I'm not sure the first sentence is the best lead-in to the substance of
> the comment. For instance, I'm not sure what "on the table" for "many
> meetings" mean. May I suggest changing it to something along the lines of
> having serious and longstanding concerns over the inaccuracies contained in
> staff reports/comments to the Board that are not shared with the relevant
> groups and overall ICANN community?
>
>
>
> - when talking about the second type of briefing, instead of saying
> "constitutes gaming", can we say "can constitute gaming"? Also, I understand
> why we are including a reference to "paid staff" but I wonder if the point
> can be better made in another way (can't think how at the moment,
> unfortunately - maybe change it to a reference about equal access to the
> Board between paid staff and volunteer, unpaid community members when it
> comes to information critical to the Board's decisions and that directly
> concerns those members?)
>
>
>
> Hope that helps. I'm happy to help clean up and edit the final statement
> too, if you like.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Mary
>
>
>
> *Mary W S Wong*
>
> Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs
>
> Franklin Pierce Law Center
>
> Two White Street
>
> Concord, NH 03301
>
> USA
>
> Email: mwong at piercelaw.edu
>
> Phone: 1-603-513-5143
>
> Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php
>
> Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN)
> at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584
>
>
>
> >>>
>
> *From: *
>
> Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
> *To:*
>
> <NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>
> *Date: *
>
> 3/11/2010 3:36 AM
>
> *Subject: *
>
> please send comments on this draft RE: Transparency
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100311/f2673252/attachment.html>