Re: [ga] Sorry, ... we can't discuss this in public

["kidsearch" <kidsearch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Danny. Since the mailing lists are public, (anyone can join) then pretty
much anything said on a list is fair game for public domain. So reposting,
etc. isn't something within ICANN control IMHO.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2005 7:09 AM
Subject: [ga] Sorry, ... we can't discuss this in public


> It was brought to my attention by a certain ICANN
> Board member [????] that another ICANN Board member
> [ALEX] was upset that the comments that yet another
> ICANN Board member [VINT] exchanged with me on a
> thread posted to the General Assembly discussion list
> were reproduced by someone else [TROLL] in an
> anonymous post to ICANNWatch.
>
> If there is a lesson to be learned from this, it is
> that there are those within ICANN [THE BOARD] who have
> a clear preference for private discussions over public
> debate.  This is why the corridors, rather than the
> assembly rooms, are of such importance at ICANN
> meetings.
>
> ICANN doesn't want a venue for ongoing public
> discussions -- that's one of the reasons why the ICANN
> Board structurally eliminated the DNSO General
> Assembly.  It's also one of the reasons why ICANN no
> longer has an open Public Forum accessible from its
> home page.  Sorry, ... no posting/criticism is
> allowed.
>
> ICANN constituencies have learned this lesson well.
> The new VeriSign/ICANN .com Registry Agreement has
> been posted and yet you can't find any meaningful
> public discussion on the issues anywhere within a
> constituency discussion list (although there was a
> request within the registrar list to extend the
> comment period until the Vancouver meeting -- thereby
> allowing registrar comments to be made in a venue
> other than that of the public forum).
>
> An open public discussion might reveal "things" (and
> we wouldn't want that, would we?).  This is why the
> registries don't have a transparent publicly-archived
> discussion list, and of course neither does the
> Business Constituency.  It is also why ICANN doesn't
> webcast its "informational" meetings with the
> registrar constituency.
>
> ICANN believes that all discussions of public issues
> have to be undertaken in secret.  This is why the
> representatives of the "people", the government
> delegations in the GAC, necessarily have to have
> closed sessions.  Secrecy. Secrecy. Secrecy... ICANN
> will settle for nothing less when it comes to
> important public policy matters (which in their view
> should never be discussed in public).
>
> Negotiations will be transacted in quiet little dark
> corners... it's the ICANN way of doing things.
>
> The trouble-makers in this process are, of course,
> those unrepresented members of the public that can't
> afford to travel to the corridors of power, and that
> have this horrible habit of wanting to discuss public
> policy matters in public.
>
> ICANN has eliminated the At-Large Directors,
> eliminated the DNSO GA, eliminated the Open Public
> Forum, and yet the At-Large still persists in sending
> public comments and in actually conversing with ICANN
> Board members publicly -- when will they ever learn?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page!
> http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs