NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML 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:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:35:02 -0800
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (2326 bytes) , text/html (3257 bytes)
Below is first draft joint NCSG-ALAC statement on the need for  
transparency of the Secret Board Briefings.

The stmt isn't something that we would release or publish this week.   
However, Avri and I may meet with  ALAC this afternoon to discuss  
this draft.  So please send any comments on this draft so we can  
bring those into this mtg today in a few hours.  We will have a  
revised draft after the mtg.  Thank you.

Robin

-------
For many meetings now,  the topic of Staff Briefing to the Board and  
Transparency has been on the table.

While understanding that there indeed some briefings that should  
remain confidential between the Board and the Staff especially those  
within its fiduciary capacities and those encumbered by personal  
privacy consideration, there are also many issues that require  
transparency.

Within the categories that require transparency there are two  
separate types of issue.

The first type are briefings that concern an Advisory Committee or a  
Supporting Organization.  In the case of this type of briefing, it is  
not appropriate for the Staff to be making unverified claims about  
and AC or SO without the knowledge of that AC and SO.  Without AC or  
SO verification of the contents of a briefing, the Board is left  
making its evaluation based on rumor and may make decisions based on  
erroneous information.

The second type of briefing are those that concern the policy work  
for which the SOs are responsible and on which the ACs must advise.   
For the Board to be making policy decision based on information that  
has not been reviewed by the community constitutes gaming of the  
bottom up policy process and gives one member of the community, the  
paid staff and undue advantage over the other participants in the  
community.

We request that the Board change its policy so that the briefing of  
the types discussed above be made available to the correct audience;  
the first type being made available to the SO or AC in question and  
the second type be made available to the community.

After the policy has been received we request that recent briefings  
that have contributed to various decisions also be released.



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]





ATOM RSS1 RSS2