The IGF multistakeholder advisory group uses anonymized email digests 
rather than a completely open list.  Everything's in the digest 
unless someone gives good reason for it not to be (a discussion about 
individuals for example, the MAG selects speakers...), just no names 
<http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/mag/110-magdigest>

Perhaps a suggestion for later.

Adam



At 1:21 AM +0800 1/21/10, David Cake wrote:
>At 3:51 PM -0800 19/1/10, Robin Gross wrote:
>>Thanks for sending this draft council letter around.  It is very 
>>good except I do not agree that the review groups should operate 
>>under Chatham House Rules on confidentiality.  It would certainly 
>>be a step backward for a group that is to assess the openness and 
>>transparency of ICANN to operate in this secret fashion and 
>>contrary to ICANN's promises of openness and transparency. 
>>Everything else in the letter looks good however.
>
>	I am going to agree with Brenden on Chatham House rules being 
>valuable. I think a review team needs to be able to raise a wide 
>range of concerns without worrying about it reflecting on them 
>personally, and I think Chatham House rules enable a wider range of 
>discussion of the issues than might otherwise occur if individual 
>participant comments were made public.
>	Regards
>		David