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

[Membership] Is the fishbowl transparent enough?

Diane , Molly and all committee members,

Thank you Diane, for that link.
>The fishbowl can be found at http://www.icann.org/membership-com.html and
>http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/ (see links under The Study).
After your posting, at last I could find the minutes of the phone
conferences of the committee.

Still, I am disappointed about the level of disclosure.

>From the minutes of the Jan 6, meeting:

"The committee then discussed whether their meeting in Singapore should be
open to the public. Many members were in
favor of an open meeting, but a few raised concerns that the group wouldn't
be able to get all of its work done. Conrades
suggested that the group continue this discussion via email. "

Comment:  It would be good to know who are the members in favour of an open
Singapore meeting and who against.
This is not about the validity of the argument, but simply a desire to see
a voting track record of each committee member.    *That's* a fishbowl.


"Conrades asked whether members should be required to have some "skin in
the game," a demonstrable interest in domain name
and IP number issues. Several committee members said that Internet users
who are not domain name holders should be able to
participate too." 

It is not clear who are in favour. It is not even clear if  Mr Conrades is
in favour of the "users-not-stakeholders" membership.
Molly, would it be possible to mention more names in the minutes next time?

Mr Conrades, would it be possible that  email discussion between the
members takes place on a list that is "read-only" accessible to the members
of this list and perhaps to the Berkmann center? 

If it is done this way  a lot can be accomplished before the Singapore
meeting and the concerns to make that an open meeting could be met.

And Molly, (minor gripe,) could this list be set so that a "reply" command
sends the posting to the list and not to the poster alone?