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. >