RE: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri,

I inserted a few responses below.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 2:29 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I guess I disagree, I very much appreciate the ability to 
> listen to the call, and am grateful it was posted.  I think 
> posting these calls is an important first step in achieving 
> transparency of the process and I hope it is not stopped and 
> that there are no repercussions towards anyone for having posted it.

Chuck: I didn't say anything about whether it should be posted or not, I
just didn't think it needed to be posted on the Master Calendar.  The
Master Calendar could easily become too large and less useful if every
possible meeting is included there and, if there is an expectation that
every step in a process opens the door for new comment, it could
definitely slow things down without commensurate value.  I would just
suggest posting meetings such as these in a different location or in a
distinct part of the Master Calendar.

> 
> I have no problem with the staff doing information gathering, 
> but I do believe that this has to be balanced.  And while one 
> meeting is not enough to know for sure, I believe the 
> information that was relayed in that meeting might, through 
> the use of one sided definitions, skew the studies.

Chuck: And if it did we would have opportunity to identify that when
Staff gave us their report. I believe we need to have a certain level of
trust that Staff is there to work with us.  If there are reasons to
believe otherwise, we should deal with them when they occur, but I
personally am uncomfortable with an overly suspicious approach.

> 
> I think transparency has to be a universal principle at ICANN 
> that we al strive for
> though we all may miss miss the mark at times.  And while not   
> everyone should
> be able to attend every meeting, everyone (and every 
> constituency) should be able to know about meetings that are 
> occurring and should have a way to make sure that the full 
> spread of opinion and expertise is represented.  this is 
> especially the case in something as sensitive and culturally 
> explosive as Whois.
> 
> I believe expediency by the Staff is never a good reason for 
> a lack of transparency.

Chuck: I am not advocating lack of transparency but I believe it can be
accomplished while still maximizing efficiency.

> 
> a.
> 
> 
> On 18 Aug 2009, at 14:15, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > I am all for openness and transparency but we also have to 
> be careful 
> > not to make our activities so cumbersome that we cannot get things 
> > done within a reasonable time frame.
> >
> > Chuck
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:54 AM
> >> To: Council GNSO
> >> Subject: Re: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Yes, I am listening to it now.  And it does appear to be 
> an experts 
> >> only by-invitation only meeting for the purpose you mention.
> >>
> >> I wonder though, since the studies have grown beyond their 
> original 
> >> proposers, whether the range of voices at the meeting was 
> adequate.  
> >> I also wonder whether it is is appropriate for there to be 
> meetings 
> >> held with some participants in a council activity without 
> others at 
> >> least being informed and given a chance to request an 
> invitation for 
> >> their experts.
> >>
> >> I am grateful that the mp3 was made available so at least thee is 
> >> some transparency into the process.
> >>
> >> a.
> >>
> >> On 18 Aug 2009, at 11:45, Tim Ruiz wrote:
> >>
> >>> I believe this was the call with study proposers to give an
> >> overview
> >>> of the RFP that would be used to do an analysis of the
> >> Subject study.
> >>> So likely only relevant proposers were invited.
> >>>
> >>> Tim
> >>>
> >>> -------- Original Message --------
> >>> Subject: [council] Whois "misrepresentation study" meeting
> >>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Tue, August 18, 2009 9:54 am
> >>> To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> Just found this in the calendar.
> >>> Was this meeting announced?
> >>> Did it have an agenda?
> >>>
> >>> Was it an open meeting, as all GNSO meetings are unless
> >> specifically
> >>> closed over personal privacy concerns, or was it by 
> invitation only?
> >>>
> >>> If I knew of this and it just did not register, I 
> apologize, but I 
> >>> really do not know what it was about.
> >>>
> >>> I will listen to the audio, but am looking for some context.
> >>>
> >>> http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-whois-20090810.mp3
> >>>
> >>> thanks
> >>>
> >>> a.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
>