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
>> comingŠ.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.
>
>