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.

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]