On May 8, 2014, at 9:46 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Yes, i know.  But others ignore it as they reject top-down rules on
> Constituency and Stakeholder group matters.
> 

not sure we can call the bylaws top down, words only get in after quite careful and extensive public comment.  And if any GNSO guideline/process exists, then that couldn't really be considered anything other than owned by the constituencies.  I think the current climate of transparency and accountability an ideal time to ask (demand?) the other constituencies live up to the community's expectations.  No double standards from them. 


> I am not seriously suggesting that we stop being transparent.  I have
> been among the most strident on the issue of transparency.

I know.  Comments in no way (none, zero :-)) intended to suggest otherwise. 

Adam


> I think that
> ICANN should be default transparent with careful application of
> restrictions when absolutely necessary and documented per instance.
> That is also what ATRT2 recommends.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 08-May-14 05:02, Adam Peake wrote:
>> On May 7, 2014, at 7:53 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Kind of already in the bylaws, <http://www.icann.org/en/about/governance/bylaws#X-5.3>  Do the GNSO's principles have anything to say about transparency, open list archives etc.  I remember something about a requirement for open discuss list, published membership roster and applications criteria/process, but perhaps never implemented or I'm dreaming (wishful thinking.)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> Don't wait for review.  NCUC/NCSG is setting a standard, ask others to meet it -- if and if they cannot/will not, why?  ICANN transparency and accountability among the current most important topics, those tending to sit in judgement of ICANN the organization, staff and management, board, etc should not object to themselves being exemplary. 
>> 
>> Adam
>> 
>> 
>>> 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
>>> 
>>> ...
>> 
>>