Garden Club rules work very well for Garden Clubs.

But ICANN is a public governance institution entrusted with the  
global public interest.  You don't apply Garden Club rules to public  
governance institutions.  The goals and duties are entirely different  
between the 2 types of institutions.  Secret ballots to avoid  
offending colleagues in the Garden Club is fine and the right policy  
for that situation, but not for public governance institutions where  
elected representatives are entrusted with the global public  
interest.  We should not allow ICANN's prominent promises of openness  
and transparency to be simply empty rhetoric.

Robin



On Oct 16, 2009, at 3:24 PM, Edward Hasbrouck wrote:

> Shouldn't this group try to set an example of complying with ICANN  
> Bylaws?
>
> The Bylaws require that "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall  
> operate to
> the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner".
>
> The *only* criteria is whether transparency is "feasible". Whether  
> you (or
> anyone else) thinks it would be advantageous or convenient or  
> result in
> better decisions to hold a closed meeting is irrelevant. The  
> underlying
> assumption that led to this rule, presumably, was that better  
> decisions
> would be made in the open.  But whatever the reasons, that's  
> currently the
> rule.  If you don't like it, propose a change in the Bylaws.
>
> In the meantime, if you want to be a "constituent body" of ICANN,  
> set an
> example to all the other ICANN bodies that flout the Bylaws by holding
> secret meetings: Start operating in a fishbowl, as the Bylaws require.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Edward Hasbrouck
> http://hasbrouck.org/icann




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]