[ncsg-policy] Transparency and the negotiations between the Board and the GAC on new gTLDs

[Adam Peake]

Konstantinos, things aren't quite as bad as you're suggesting (I hope.)

There's an interview with Peter Dengate Thrush and Rob Beckstrom on
the ICANN website <http://www.icann.org/video/> (go to the Cartagena
tab).

Question: will the February meeting be open?

Response was that while rules of engagement have not been negotiated,
Peter Dengate Thrush said: "the standard position of all
organizations in ICANN is that they are open and that's part of our
commitment to transparency and part of our accountability
obligations." He then goes on to say that if either party thinks
there would be benefit in holding discussions in private then they
could consider that.

Important to support the letter.  And I hope the NCSG will also add a
comment about holding the meeting as early as possible.

Adam



At 12:57 PM +0000 1/9/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>I also support and strongly encourage that we support this petition.
>There are many issues why this is important - the most important is
>transparency. We need to remember that the issues that will be
>discussed at this meeting constitute part of previous discussions
>and resolutions by multi-stakeholder working groups and teams within
>ICANN and ones that the community has accepted (at least the
>majority of the community). It is quite disconcerting that aspect of
>this whole process, which is so close to fruition, appears to be
>dependent on this very meeting and that this very meeting will not
>be open to all interested parties. and, given that this meeting is
>so close to the SF meeting, where ICANN is planning to introduce the
>new gTDLs, there will hardly be any time for public comment. This
>makes the need for making this meeting open and transparent even
>more essential.
>
>KK
>
>
>On 08/01/2011 15:12, "Avri Doria" <avri at ltu.se> wrote:
>
>Hi,
>
>
><http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_board_gac_geneva_meeting_open_to_observers/>
>
>Contains an appeal to the Board and GAC to open their talks in
>Geneva to both on-site and remote participation.  As I understand
>it,  this is becoming a petition.  I have already offered my
>personal support and was wondering whether the NCSG would be
>interested or willing to support the petition.
>
>I suggest members comment on the discussion list  so that the NCSG
>Policy Committee can make a decision based on those discussions.
>
>Thanks,
>
>a.