Re: [council] Attendance at Council meetings

["Antonio Harris" <harris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

The practice of having cross-constituency meetings
between the BC, IPC and ISPCP constituencies has
been routine over the last couple of years at ICANN
meetings. Much as I can romanticize about being a
character in a cloak and dagger secretive encounter,
the meetings are organized to avoid having certain
"leading" topics (and presentations related to these topics from
relevant specialists), repeated in three different rooms
on the same day, as well as leveraging the various
viewpoints that can emerge from a larger group.

As far as I know, no other constituency ever indicated
any desire to participate, and the meetings have always
been announced and everyone has been aware of them.

Hope that can ease your misgivings!

Tony Harris

----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
<council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx>; <twomey@xxxxxxxxx>; <ebroitman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:22 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Attendance at Council meetings


> Bruce,
>
> The gTLD Registries Constituency will be participating in the call
tomorrow.
> I believe Cary will not be in attendance, but that he has given his proxy
to
> Jordyn and if he is not there, to me.
>
> However, our earlier concerns and reservations still apply.  Our
> participating in this call should not be viewed in any way as waiving any
of
> those concerns or reservations.  If we believe that the discussion takes a
> turn towards what we believe are anti-competitive or discussions that have
> anti-trust implications, we will have no choice but to leave the call.
>
> In addition, I would like to raise another concern involving openness and
> transparency.  It has come to our attention that the Business Constituency
> has attempted to arrange a private meeting during the Tunisia meeting with
> several other constituencies (including the ISPs, the Registrars, the
ALAC,
> etc.) to discuss the Wildcard Service and introduction of registry
services
> in general.
>
> While meetings on ICANN-issues should certainly be encouraged, meetings
that
> exclude certain groups from participating (including the Registries and
the
> Noncommercial Constituency) are, in our view, in violation of ICANN's
Bylaws
> and not in line with the notion of transparency and openness.
>
> While we see no problem with one constituency having closed meetings to
> formulate policy positions and handle internal constituency matters, when
> more than one constituency gets together to discuss topics, then those
> meetings should be required to be open to all constituencies to attend.
This
> type of activity goes to the core of our concerns about anti-trust and
> unfair competition.
>
> By this note, I have also put the ICANN General Counsel on notice of our
> concerns.  I trust that this type of exclusionary practice will not occur
at
> the Tunisia meeting or any other ICANN-sponsored event.
>
> Jeff Neuman,
> Chair, gTLD Registries Constituency
>