Yes, I agree that NCSG should support this petition for transparency at this meeting between GAC & the ICANN Board.
Thanks,
Robin
On Jan 9, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Drake William wrote:
> I agree we should support this, and if it's in Geneva could attend if it's open to other stakeholders, at least as observers. Stéphane said on the Council list that he's written to Heather and Peter inquiring, no answer yet….
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Jan 9, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>> Konstantinos, things aren't quite as bad as you're suggesting (I hope.)
>>
>> There's an interview with Peter Dengate Thrush and Rob Beckstrom on the ICANN website <http://www.icann.org/video/> (go to the Cartagena tab).
>>
>> Question: will the February meeting be open?
>>
>> Response was that while rules of engagement have not been negotiated, Peter Dengate Thrush said: "the standard position of all organizations in ICANN is that they are open and that's part of our commitment to transparency and part of our accountability obligations." He then goes on to say that if either party thinks there would be benefit in holding discussions in private then they could consider that.
>>
>> Important to support the letter. And I hope the NCSG will also add a comment about holding the meeting as early as possible.
>>
>> Adam
>>
>>
>>
>> At 12:57 PM +0000 1/9/11, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>> I also support and strongly encourage that we support this petition. There are many issues why this is important - the most important is transparency. We need to remember that the issues that will be discussed at this meeting constitute part of previous discussions and resolutions by multi-stakeholder working groups and teams within ICANN and ones that the community has accepted (at least the majority of the community). It is quite disconcerting that aspect of this whole process, which is so close to fruition, appears to be dependent on this very meeting and that this very meeting will not be open to all interested parties. and, given that this meeting is so close to the SF meeting, where ICANN is planning to introduce the new gTDLs, there will hardly be any time for public comment. This makes the need for making this meeting open and transparent even more essential.
>>>
>>> KK
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/01/2011 15:12, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> <http://www.circleid.com/posts/icann_board_gac_geneva_meeting_open_to_observers/>
>>>
>>> Contains an appeal to the Board and GAC to open their talks in Geneva to both on-site and remote participation. As I understand it, this is becoming a petition. I have already offered my personal support and was wondering whether the NCSG would be interested or willing to support the petition.
>>>
>>> I suggest members comment on the discussion list so that the NCSG Policy Committee can make a decision based on those discussions.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> a.
>
> ***********************************************************
> William J. Drake
> Senior Associate
> Centre for International Governance
> Graduate Institute of International and
> Development Studies
> Geneva, Switzerland
> [log in to unmask]
> www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************************
>
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]
|
