Well, if you want to talk policy strategy in front of your principal adversaries that is fine.  I don't.  Lets try to keep this in perspective ED. 

1.  There is an active move afoot to restructure the GNSO to minimize us.  I plan to attend those meetings.  The GAC public safety is gearing up for major initiatives that threaten our goals in terms of human rights.....we need to cover all those meetings.  I would like somewhere to discuss what I see with our EC/policy members.  Suggestions welcome, but it is not like we can meet outside hours because we are scattered around a city of 6 million where it is not really safe for us women to mosey around at night.

2.  We are talking here about our executive cttee meetings.  None of the other constituencies have open exec meetings, why would we do that in the name of transparency?

I propose we stick to what Tapani is suggesting.  This meeting is a very difficult one, with a great many conflicts on the agenda for important policy matters.  I have some instances of triple conflicts on related matters.....My concern is how we manage to actually cover all the meetings we need to with the small crew we have on the ground.

Stephanie

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

Hmmm...

 

 

 

---

 

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,

 

That's often a criticism of many NCSG members in subgroups. Heck, our mere participation in the RPM group is considered a disruption by those who believe the purpose of the RPM's is to provide mechanisms to protect trademark interests without regard to any other group. One person's disrupter is another person's hero.

 

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.

 

Hard to do when the NCSG EC post states: 

"Please find below the dial in details for the closed NCSG meetings during ICANN57 in Hyderabad. Please distribute this information on a private list."

 

Closed means the door is shut behind you. No one who isn't invited can follow live, transcripts are not distributed to all.

 

As I'm currently  trying to open up the CEP, after being part of groups that have successfully pressured the Board and the GAC to become more open,  I really can't attend closed meetings and maintain any sort of consistent legitimacy. The NCSG should be a leader in opening up meetings, not lagging the Board and the GAC in transparency by closing them. We have member Constituencies engaged in actions concerning membership eligibility in private email exchanges, our "leaders" meeting with Board members in closed fashion...

 

Sad. As I'm not a big fan of "do as I say not what I do" I hope our SG leadership decides to open things up so I can attend all the meetings I'm supposed to be at. Otherwise, like our Members,  I'll wait to be told what those involved chose to tell me. 

 

Best,

 

Ed Morris

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stephanie Perrin

 

On 2016-10-29 03:58, Tapani Tarvainen wrote:

[log in to unmask]" type="cite">

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.