Hi,

> Might this be a topic we could raise in NCSG-Board meeting in
> London?

sure.

Compliance with the rules is also something we can make an issue in the
GNSO review.

Of course, some from other SG (Stakeholder groups) and C
(Constituencies) might respond that the SG and C are bottom up and what
right does the Board SIC (Structural Improvements Comm) have to make
such rules in the first place.

The lesson we might need to learn is that our compliance might be the
error.  In any case the GNSO review should look into this issue.

avri

On 07-May-14 06:43, William Drake wrote:
> Hi
> 
> You may recall that at our January 2012 “House” meeting in LA we told
> Fadi much the same, that transparency was limited and highly variable
> elsewhere, e.g. one cannot even find a proper list of the IPC’s
> membership on their website, etc.  We pressed the point that there
> should be uniform transparency requirements across GNSO and indeed
> ICANN communities and he expressed interest in the idea and talked
> about engaging Transparency International or similar to do an
> evaluation.  We never followed up with him and nothing happened to my
> knowledge.
> 
> Might this be a topic we could raise in NCSG-Board meeting in
> London?
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
> On May 7, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I want to self congratulate our SG for being the only GNSO SG, I 
>> believe, to have an open archive list with meetings that have
>> public archived recordings and transcript.  This make us, as I
>> understand it, the only SG in compliance with ICANN rules about SG
>> practices.  I think it is good we do so, and I wish the rest of the
>> SG would come into compliance.
>> 
>> avri
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 07-May-14 01:16, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>> hi everyone,
>>> 
>>> please find here the mp3 recording of yesterday confcall

...