I think this is a more sensible approach.  Most of us have had 
experience on PDPs with one or more disrupters.....wasting a lot of 
people's time being difficult, and we have a packed agenda at this 
meeting, it is our big chance to make progress face to face.  Open 
records is a lot different than open forum, and we can always allow 
audio listen in, with texted questions permitted.

Stephanie Perrin


On 2016-10-29 03:58, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:
> Hi Ed,
>
> I wasn't actually thinking of closed/open here in terms of secrecy
> at all, only about keeping the meetings manageable.
>
> In other (non-ICANN) contexts I've experience with people trying
> deliberately disrupt meetings or to hijack them to their own
> irrelevant agendas, but even with well-intentioned people meetings get
> harder to manage as the number or participants grows, all the way down
> to finding big enough room for all. And in negotiations between two
> or more groups the number of participants from each side also matters.
>
> I would be 100% in favour of releasing recordings and transcripts of
> these meetings publicly as well as letting the whole world listen in,
> but making them fully open in terms of participation is not quite as
> easy. In practice I expect we'll let in any interested people as long
> as space allows, but if we run out of space and some rule is needed to
> select who gets in, preferring our own members seems reasonable to me.
>
> Your offer to help in crowd management is welcome, although I suspect
> the situation is a bit different in a rock concert than in an ExCom
> meeting in a room with space for only 10 people or so.
>
> As for who we need to ask in the cases under discussion, first the
> ExComs of NCSG, NCUC and NPOC, then in NCPH case the CSG and in our
> leaders' meeting with Board the Board members in question.
>
> I don't really expect any of them to object to transparency, but they
> might be hesitant in allowing unlimited and unpredictable number of
> actual participants. It certainly has been the case before that we've
> had to carefully balance the number of NCSG and CSG participants,
> for example.
>