[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Balancing" Was: Re: [ga] nominations

Karl and everybody else,

  Hay Karl, you are right on here!  I like you style!  
I am glad Jeff WIlliams recomended to me to second
your nomination now!  :)

  BTW, you know I didn't see my second or my nomination
where it should be.  Do you know anything about that Karl?

In a message dated 99-09-20 15:20:23 EDT, you write:

<< Subj:     "Balancing" Was: Re: [ga] nominations
 Date:  99-09-20 15:20:23 EDT
 From:  karl@CaveBear.com (Karl Auerbach)
 Sender:    owner-ga@dnso.org
 Reply-to:  karl@CaveBear.com (Karl Auerbach)
 To:    ga@dnso.org (ga@dnso.org)
 > >Article III, Section 1 of the ICANN bylaws states:
 > >   The Corporation and its subordinate entities shall operate to the 
 > >   extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with 
 > > procedures
 > >   designed to ensure fairness....
 > >
 > >I read that as requiring that all meetings, all documents, all
 > >records, be open to public view except for those things that are
 > >required to be kept private by law or for things that concern
 > You missed the word "feasible".
 > That word permits balancing openness with productivity.
 "Feasible" means something completly different to the lazy man than it
 does to the person who is motivated.
 Openness and transparency are fundamental issues.
 They are not to be "balanced" into meaninglessness.
 There is virtually nothing that ICANN is doing, outside of personnel
 matters, that deserves any secrecy whatsoever.
 Certainly not the consideration of whether to extend board terms.
 Certainly not the decision to race the WIPO proposals.
 Certainly not the decision to dismember the at-large membership.
 Certainly not the decision to enter into a CRADA (CREDA) agreement with
 the US government, the real purpose of which is still secret.
 Certainly not the decision to ignore the IDNO constituency petitions.
 The current board members don't want us to see them making choices.  But
 that's what transparency is all about.  If someone on the board doesn't
 feel comfortable with letting the world know how that person is deciding
 issues of internet governance, than that board members should step aside
 and let someone else take the seat.
 ICANN is not a for-profit business that is trying to compete and needs a
 degree of secrecy.
 ICANN *is* internet government and we need to see every detail of its
 operation except those pertaining to personnel.
 And that need is not answered by the theatrical performance entitled
 "an open board meeting" that happend a couple of weeks ago.
 No, "balance" is not acceptable.
 Full, open, transparent, and now that we are getting some new board
 members, accountable is the standard.  It is not a standard to be
 "balanced"  away.
  David "Dude" Jenson