Re: [ga] To: ga@dnso.org

["Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@cavebear.com>
To: "Peter Dengate Thrush" <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>
Cc: "DNSO General Assembly" <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 29, 2002 11:00 AM
Subject: Re: [ga] To: ga@dnso.org


> >
> > In a private situation I'd be agreeing with you.
>
> In a private organization, the balance between openness/transparency and
> the need for smooth functioning tends to give weight to the latter over
> the former.

  snip/shift

>ICANN is a public-benefit organization.  Efficiency is not ICANN's highest
>goal, process is at least as important as the result, and public
>acceptance of decisions is as important as the decisions themselves.


I don't have much time for this right now, so some brief comment only.
I am glad that you put this as a balancing question between these two
issues. I beleive it is true for a public interest organisation like ICANN,
and agree that the balance shifts more in favour of opennness at the
"expense" of operational efficiency. We can have a sensible difference of
opinion on where the best balance lies.

> And I completely understand the need for there to be space for hard
> positions to be softened so that compromises may be reached.  But those
> are special spaces that ought to be the exception rather than the norm.

I agree. I regard this type of retreat as an exception to the norm of open
board meetings, open calls etc. Its a rather single-issue retreat also,
given the exceptional circumstances of the CEO's prognosis of company
failure. If it were to become the routine way of dealing with issues, I
would arguing that the balance had shifted too far.


WRT your message about the bylaws, I could have an argument about words like
"feasible" and the interpretation of other clauses. I don't see the bylaws
as preventing such a meeting -it was transparent to the extent that it was
well advertised in advance, and reports are filtering out of it. That could
be better handled by such as a published synopsis from the staff after, but
that's a PR issue.

The point surely is that it is the published result promised later this week
that provides the community the opportunity for comment,
argument,persuasion, participation and ultimately judgement of the Board's
conduct that is vital. not a meeting along the way?

Regards


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html