The IGF multistakeholder advisory group uses anonymized email digests rather than a completely open list. Everything's in the digest unless someone gives good reason for it not to be (a discussion about individuals for example, the MAG selects speakers...), just no names <http://www.intgovforum.org/cms/index.php/mag/110-magdigest> Perhaps a suggestion for later. Adam At 1:21 AM +0800 1/21/10, David Cake wrote: >At 3:51 PM -0800 19/1/10, Robin Gross wrote: >>Thanks for sending this draft council letter around. It is very >>good except I do not agree that the review groups should operate >>under Chatham House Rules on confidentiality. It would certainly >>be a step backward for a group that is to assess the openness and >>transparency of ICANN to operate in this secret fashion and >>contrary to ICANN's promises of openness and transparency. >>Everything else in the letter looks good however. > > I am going to agree with Brenden on Chatham House rules being >valuable. I think a review team needs to be able to raise a wide >range of concerns without worrying about it reflecting on them >personally, and I think Chatham House rules enable a wider range of >discussion of the issues than might otherwise occur if individual >participant comments were made public. > Regards > David