Re: [council] GNSO Council meet and greet?
On Sep 17, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Council should bear in mind that there is sometimes an inherent
conflict between transparency and freedom to dialogue.
For an individual, or small business there is likely to be no such
For an employee of a publicly quoted company or other organisation
of reputation, there is a high likelihood of this conflict.
In some situations, not others.
Typically an employee of such a company in the knowledge their
comments may be publically archived in oral or written form will be
constrained in what they are able to say by internal guidelines or
practise. These guidelines will typically be established to protect
the corporation from legal suit, to protect reputation or to protect
the share price.
Given the choice of continual checking with in-house legal counsel
and silence, they may choose silence.
Legal suit? Share prices? What sort of complaint session do you have
in mind here? Adrian described it as people saying stuff like
On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:47 AM, Adrian Kinderis wrote:
I know the registrars for example would say that they are a little
sick and tired of being pigeonholed simply because they have
commercial interests. I'm sure other groups would have pet hates too.
Is this really the sort of topic that would be likely to give rise to
legal action or affect your share price?
Remind me again how this exercise is going to promote group cohesion
If therefore Council has an ambition to have a frank exchange of
views, separate from its central role of policy development, it
should bear in mind the conflict that some Council members may be
under through no fault of their own other than their choice of
So expression of outrage and calls of "Vive la transparence" may
make good rhetoric but will lead to poorer dialogue.
I'm fascinated that you consider transparency and accountability to be
just disposable rhetoric. And that you're so shy about expressing
your feelings, who knew?