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.
>>
>
>