Indeed, Lou, transparency is the mark of good-faith deliberations.  It
should be the standard wherever possible.  We live in an imperfect (and
non-perfectible) world but it's always good to have a clear vision of what
perfection would look like.  But if and when reality comes up short, one
deals with it on its own terms with open eyes...

I guess I missed when NPOC set up all of its various public platforms (I
could easily have had my attention directed elsewhere at the moment, given
my very light participation in NCUC/NCSG these days), so I'm glad Alain
pointed them out.  Of course, one trusts that private back channels are not
being used ubiquitously to avoid public scrutiny of tactical and strategic
planning prior to appearance on public platforms.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.



At 11:05 AM -0500 1/21/13, Carl Smith wrote:
>Dan,
>
>I for one hope we who represent the noncommercial interest of the world
>do not devolve into secrecy. We represent the 99% in my view. I want
>people to know who I support.
>
>respectfully,
>
>Lou
>
>On 1/20/2013 8:38 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>> At 5:02 PM +0100 1/20/13, William Drake wrote:
>>> Second, we've reached agreement in the EC and EPT (uh oh, new acronyms
>>> comingS.sorry) on establishing a new ncuc members listserv (double sorry).
>>> As you probably know, from 2003 - 2010 the present listserv was
>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask], then
>>> with the formation of NCSG and NPOC it became NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@ and
>>> finally [log in to unmask]  Many folks thought we should have a single
>>> listserv to discuss GNSO/ICANN matters and that there wasn't a need for a
>>> NCUC-specific list.  However, when NCUC people did need to communicate
>>> with each other (as in this message) there's been nowhere else to do it,
>>> and some NPOC folks have objected to constituency-related traffic on the
>>> shared list.  Fair enough, and now that we're hoping NCUC will be getting
>>> more active on intra-organizational matters, there's really no getting
>>> around having a separate list, as NPOC does.  So in the next few weeks
>>> we'll be setting this up, and will be back to you about the details of the
>>> transition.
>>
>> Curious as to whether we will continue to keep this list open to public
>> observation (my default assumption is yes).  I haven't checked recently,
>> but does NPOC keep their "internal" communications private to members only?
>> Is there any reason for NCUC to do something similar, as long as NCSG
>> remains public?  Is it time for NCUC to operate "in a back room" or do we
>> all feel comfortable operating completely in public where anyone can view
>> our internal deliberations?  What is the proper role of transparency in the
>> ICANN policy-making hierarchy?  (And actually, is NPOC violating any
>> transparency rules if it indeed carries on policy deliberations that are
>> not open to  public observation?)
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>> --
>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>
>>