Hello there, I think that we need to be direct and not be so diplomatic, by highlighting that constitutes gaming and the problem is because those staff reports addressed to the board. I am not favor of striking those parts. Regards Rafik 2010/3/11 Debra Hughes <[log in to unmask]> > All, > > I understand you may be meeting with ALAC about this now; so my comments > are below in *red*. > > Debbie > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > For many meetings now, the topic of Staff Briefing to the Board and > Transparency has been on the table. *– I agree with Mary’s comments below > about this leading sentence.* > > > > 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 issues. > > > > The first type is 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 is 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 makeing policy decision*s* based on information that has not > been reviewed by the community *seems contrary to the principle of > transparency and equal access that are at the core *constitutes gaming of > the bottom up policy process and *could *give*s* 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. > > > > > > *Debra Y. Hughes** l** Senior Counsel* > *American Red Cross* > > Office of the General Counsel > 2025 E Street, NW > Washington, D.C. 20006 > Phone: (202) 303-5356 > Fax: (202) 303-0143 > [log in to unmask] > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of *Mary Wong > *Sent:* Thursday, March 11, 2010 4:03 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > > *Subject:* please send comments on this draft RE: Transparency > > > > Great effort, thanks Robin & Avri, and it's an excellent idea to have this > as a joint statement with ALAC. Just a few specific comments for now: > > > > - I'm not sure the first sentence is the best lead-in to the substance of > the comment. For instance, I'm not sure what "on the table" for "many > meetings" mean. May I suggest changing it to something along the lines of > having serious and longstanding concerns over the inaccuracies contained in > staff reports/comments to the Board that are not shared with the relevant > groups and overall ICANN community? > > > > - when talking about the second type of briefing, instead of saying > "constitutes gaming", can we say "can constitute gaming"? Also, I understand > why we are including a reference to "paid staff" but I wonder if the point > can be better made in another way (can't think how at the moment, > unfortunately - maybe change it to a reference about equal access to the > Board between paid staff and volunteer, unpaid community members when it > comes to information critical to the Board's decisions and that directly > concerns those members?) > > > > Hope that helps. I'm happy to help clean up and edit the final statement > too, if you like. > > > > Cheers > > Mary > > > > *Mary W S Wong* > > Professor of Law & Chair, Graduate IP Programs > > Franklin Pierce Law Center > > Two White Street > > Concord, NH 03301 > > USA > > Email: [log in to unmask] > > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > > Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php > > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > > >>> > > *From: * > > Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> > > *To:* > > <[log in to unmask]> > > *Date: * > > 3/11/2010 3:36 AM > > *Subject: * > > please send comments on this draft RE: Transparency > > 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] > > > > > > >