Hi Ed,

I wasn't actually thinking of closed/open here in terms of secrecy
at all, only about keeping the meetings manageable.

In other (non-ICANN) contexts I've experience with people trying
deliberately disrupt meetings or to hijack them to their own
irrelevant agendas, but even with well-intentioned people meetings get
harder to manage as the number or participants grows, all the way down
to finding big enough room for all. And in negotiations between two
or more groups the number of participants from each side also matters.

I would be 100% in favour of releasing recordings and transcripts of
these meetings publicly as well as letting the whole world listen in,
but making them fully open in terms of participation is not quite as
easy. In practice I expect we'll let in any interested people as long
as space allows, but if we run out of space and some rule is needed to
select who gets in, preferring our own members seems reasonable to me.

Your offer to help in crowd management is welcome, although I suspect
the situation is a bit different in a rock concert than in an ExCom
meeting in a room with space for only 10 people or so.

As for who we need to ask in the cases under discussion, first the
ExComs of NCSG, NCUC and NPOC, then in NCPH case the CSG and in our
leaders' meeting with Board the Board members in question.

I don't really expect any of them to object to transparency, but they
might be hesitant in allowing unlimited and unpredictable number of
actual participants. It certainly has been the case before that we've
had to carefully balance the number of NCSG and CSG participants,
for example.

-- 
Tapani Tarvainen


On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 09:45:10PM -0400, Edward Morris ([log in to unmask]) wrote:

> Thanks Tapani.
>   
>  You've always been a champion for openness and transparency at ICANN and I 
> hope we can make some further progress in this area. It's a sad state of 
> affairs when the ICANN Board is now more open and transparent than the NCSG 
> EC.
>   
>   
>   
>>  Executive Committee meetings have always been officially closed, but
>> all interested NCSG members have been and will be welcome nonetheless.
>> I'm not sure it'd be a good idea to invite CSG and other outsiders
>> there as well, but I'm open to persuasion there.
>   
>   
>  What vast secrets is the NCSG EC keeping from the CSG "and other 
> outsiders" that could be detrimental to our SG if they, gasp, were 
> discovered by the CSG? And those intrusive "outsiders"? Does that make all 
> of us insiders? Do we have a special handshake?
>   
>  Us against them...we'd like to tell you but "they" may find out...sad to 
> see the NCSG using the same justification for secrecy practiced by 
> governments worldwide. We should be better than that.
> 
>> To the extent it's up to me I'd apply same rule for the other two
>> meetings, but there we'll have to get other participants to agree.
>> I'll make an effort to make it happen.
>   
>  Thanks for that.
>   
>  One of the other two meetings is with the CSG. Presumably we keep those 
> discussions secret because "others" might find out? The CSG will probably 
> know of the content of the meeting because they will be there. Who are the 
> "others"? The dreaded Contracted Party House? I have friends there - does 
> that make me an "other" or am I still one of us? Confusing. 
>   
>  As for the meeting between our "leaders" and the Board. Our Members have 
> an absolute right to know what our so called leaders are discussing on our 
> behalf with the Board. This meeting should not be private under any 
> circumstance. Let me know if the Board won't agree to open it up. They have 
> made commitments to transparency and I'd like to hold them to it.
>   
>  I hope we can get these meetings opened up. If not, I won't be attending 
> the two I presumably am invited to attend. I don't do secret meetings or 
> secret mailing lists or chats unless, as with the CCWG Legal Committee 
> meetings I'm part of, confidentiality related to privacy rights and 
> fiduciary responsibilities are involved. 
>   
> 
> For local participants space may also be a concern, some of these may
> have been allocated small rooms.
>   
>  I welcome the challenging of managing an overflow crowd. In fact, I have 
> some experience doing this at rock concerts. Happy to help out. It's a lot 
> healthier, in my view, to manage excessive interest than to build walls to 
> keep people out. 
>   
>  Best,
>   
>  Ed
>   
>   
>   
> 
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> 
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 10:31:05AM +0100, Edward Morris 
> ([log in to unmask]) wrote:
> 
> > I note in the NCSG EC archive that remote participation details are 
> listed for three NCSG meetings which are said to be closed ( 
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/ec-ncsg/2016-October/001211.html ).
> >
> > The NCSG has always fought for openness and transparency at ICANN. Might 
> I inquire as to why these three meetings are closed and request that 
> efforts be made to open the meetings.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Ed
>  
>