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

Re: [names] Breaking in to the discussion

At 10:56 AM 10/13/99 , Joe Sims wrote:

This illustrates my point.  The Board publishes minutes that detail every
decision made; it has not published transcripts that detail every word
spoken.  The notion that the absence of the latter in the presence of the
former describes a "secret" meeting is just plain bizarre.  It is not a
public meeting -- although the last one was and people complained because
it was no doubt preceded by non-public discussions, pointing out how
difficult it is for some to draw any line -- but it is certainly not a
"secret" meeting.  If you think that sunshine laws have contributed to
American democracy, you will not like this; if you think that all sunshine
laws do is make government even more inefficient than it normally is, you
will not mind at all.  But for the advocates of pure openness to be
consistent, they should insist that all Congressional, executive branch and
judicial meetings should be held in public auditoriums.  No doubt there are
some who would take this position, but it does not attract much support.

Again, these are ridiculous claims.

Simply look at the ICANN board minutes:

Now compare them to the results of the
U.S. Government's public inquiries:

In the former, you have meeting minutes
of the form:
   So and so brought up this issue, so
   the board hereby RESOLVES . .  .

In the latter, you have a detailed analysis
of the topic at hand, a description of the
major opinions expressed, and the position
supported by the U.S. Government and why.

So, while ICANN claims to be an open, bottom-up,
consensus driven organization, they never even
mention the minority opinions, nor why they have
decided to pursue the decisions that they make.

And as this list so aptly illustrates, when
people ask WHY?, we get silence and snide

Welcome to Global Internet Governance!


Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480