Dan, I for one hope we who represent the noncommercial interest of the world do not devolve into secrecy. We represent the 99% in my view. I want people to know who I support. respectfully, Lou On 1/20/2013 8:38 PM, Dan Krimm wrote: > At 5:02 PM +0100 1/20/13, William Drake wrote: >> Second, we've reached agreement in the EC and EPT (uh oh, new acronyms >> coming.sorry) on establishing a new ncuc members listserv (double sorry). >> As you probably know, from 2003 - 2010 the present listserv was >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>[log in to unmask], then >> with the formation of NCSG and NPOC it became NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@ and >> finally [log in to unmask] Many folks thought we should have a single >> listserv to discuss GNSO/ICANN matters and that there wasn't a need for a >> NCUC-specific list. However, when NCUC people did need to communicate >> with each other (as in this message) there's been nowhere else to do it, >> and some NPOC folks have objected to constituency-related traffic on the >> shared list. Fair enough, and now that we're hoping NCUC will be getting >> more active on intra-organizational matters, there's really no getting >> around having a separate list, as NPOC does. So in the next few weeks >> we'll be setting this up, and will be back to you about the details of the >> transition. > > Curious as to whether we will continue to keep this list open to public > observation (my default assumption is yes). I haven't checked recently, > but does NPOC keep their "internal" communications private to members only? > Is there any reason for NCUC to do something similar, as long as NCSG > remains public? Is it time for NCUC to operate "in a back room" or do we > all feel comfortable operating completely in public where anyone can view > our internal deliberations? What is the proper role of transparency in the > ICANN policy-making hierarchy? (And actually, is NPOC violating any > transparency rules if it indeed carries on policy deliberations that are > not open to public observation?) > > Dan > > > -- > Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do > not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer. > >