Re: open and closed (3 Q

[kerryo@ns.sympatico.ca (Kerry Miller)]

Esther wrote,
> The GAC sets its own agenda, and we are not responsible for what it
> considers....or advises.
> 

  I really hope the Board invests in a dictionary. Ad-vise is in ad-
dition to a vis-ion. An ad-vis-or is given something to look at, and 
_adds its views_. It does not set its own agenda, and the ICANN 
board had damn well better prove to be responsible for what the 
GAC considers or it will lose its license. Frankly, I was going to 
suggest you  re-view (even re-vise) the minutes of the 8/12 meeting 
before they were posted, but it sounds as if its too late for that. 

In any case, from your selective response, I infer that the answers 
to the antecedent questions 

> > Why then has the issue been put on the Governmental
> > Advisory Committee agenda? Does the GAC originate "advice" 
> > for the BoD?  Is there a record of the BoD asking the GAC 
> > for this advice, against the recommendations of "staff"?

are "I am not aware of any reason," "Yes" and "No." Are those 
correct? Will it then be correct to infer that the Board will have no 
reason  -- unless the GAC gives it one, extemporaneously -- to 
consider a GAC report on the cited points at the meetings of 8/25-
26?  If, on the other hand, the Board does consider it, will that 
report be posted according to Art III, Sec 3(b), "With respect to any 
policies that are being considered for adoption that substantially 
affect the operation of the Internet or third parties..., the Board 
will... provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what 
policies are being considered for adoption *and why*..."? 

kerry