NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:55:21 +0200
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (145 lines)
Hi,

While I agree with Bill that this session should not be closed
and most probably would have voted against closing it, I must
say that I do not expect any policy to be discussed during the hour.

Really I do expect it to be mostly centered around personal
discussion of likes/dislikes and trusts/mistrusts.  This is not
to say that I think it is a good idea to have such a discussion, but
neither do I think that democracy will suffer much in the process.

a.


On 16 Oct 2009, at 15:51, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 9:29 AM, William Drake
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> One might add to this that the council voted, unanimously except  
>> Mary and I
>> (I think Avri was not voting on anything at the time due to a CSG  
>> attack on
>> her for joining NCUC), to have a Sunday morning conclave that will  
>> closed
>> door and off the record.  This was framed by proponents as a gripe  
>> session
>> where councilors will be able to vent about our "pet hates" and  
>> grievances
>> against each other.  No joke, we're actually doing this. I  
>> suggested we
>> bring a Festivus pole. Maybe Frank Costanza could facilitate.  
>> Originally
>> they wanted to start off the week of collaboration with this on  
>> Saturday
>> morning, so I guess Sunday's a slight improvement.  Our biz  
>> colleagues
>> insisted, with a straight face, that it had to be secret inter alia  
>> because
>> of possible legal actions and effects on share prices, and  
>> suggested calls
>> for transparency were just empty rhetoric.
>
> There won't be any 'irreconcilable differences'?
>
>> Anyone with a macabre taste for examples of the council's community  
>> dynamics
>> should have a look at the thread called GNSO Meet and Greet
>> at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/ 
>> thrd123.html.  It's
>> pretty priceless and gives new meaning to bottom up.
>
> Amazing!
>
> I never mind "in-camera" of anything, but for no record to exist?
> Heard somewhere that "democracy dies behind closed doors"
>
>
>> Cheers,
>> Bill
>>
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>> Thanks to Bill for weighing in against this.  I was surprised by  
>> the strong
>> reaction of the IPC member who threatens to NOT vote unless she can  
>> vote in
>> secret.
>> Now a Commercial Constituency member wants to keep all non- 
>> counselors silent
>> during the weekend sessions in Seoul.
>>  http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg07642.html
>> Our members have not yet had an opportunity to dialogue on many of  
>> these
>> issues: - they are new, Seoul will be their first meeting, etc.    
>> The idea
>> that we must be kept silent and can only watch the counsel would be a
>> terrible precedent to set for the new "reformed" GNSO.   These  
>> meetings have
>> been open and allowed for participation from any member of the GNSO  
>> before
>> now, so I hope we don't move in the direction of silencing the  
>> community who
>> is traveling to Seoul (most on their own dime) to work on these  
>> issues.
>> Robin
>>
>> On Oct 15, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Robin Gross wrote:
>>
>> I noticed that on the GNSO Council email list, the IP Constituency is
>> calling for secret ballots for the chair/vice-chair positions on  
>> council.
>> That is really surprising to me considering how ICANN claims to be  
>> "open and
>> transparent" in its activities.   And it is a bit disturbing that  
>> elected
>> representatives in a governance organization are afraid the public  
>> will know
>> how they vote on an issue.   I thought when a person is elected to  
>> represent
>> a group of people on policy issues, those people have a right to  
>> know how
>> their elected representatives are voting and handling that  
>> representation
>> given to them by the public.
>> What part of open and transparent public governance does the IPC not
>> understand?
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>
>>
>> ***********************************************************
>> William J. Drake
>> Senior Associate
>> Centre for International Governance
>> Graduate Institute of International and
>> Development Studies
>> Geneva, Switzerland
>> [log in to unmask]
>> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html
>> ***********************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2