This is certainly true, and I do think I put up quite a fight on all the PDPs that I am staffing. However, we are grossly outnumbered....please come and join the working groups and PDPs! Stephanie On 2016-10-29 12:37, Carlos Vera wrote: > As in any conflict situation, the right approach is not to restrict > the openness and transparency, but to fight against those people that > affect the normal behavior of the group. > > Carlos Vera > Isoc Ecuador > Enviado desde mi smartphone BlackBerry 10. > *De: *Stephanie Perrin > *Enviado: *sábado, 29 de octubre de 2016 08:44 > *Para: *[log in to unmask] > *Responder a: *Stephanie Perrin > *Asunto: *Re: Closed Meetings > > > 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. >> > >