<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Well, if you want to
talk policy strategy in front of your principal adversaries
that is fine. I don't. Lets try to keep this in perspective
ED. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">1. There is an active
move afoot to restructure the GNSO to minimize us. I plan to
attend those meetings. The GAC public safety is gearing up
for major initiatives that threaten our goals in terms of
human rights.....we need to cover all those meetings. I would
like somewhere to discuss what I see with our EC/policy
members. Suggestions welcome, but it is not like we can meet
outside hours because we are scattered around a city of 6
million where it is not really safe for us women to mosey
around at night.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">2. We are talking
here about our executive cttee meetings. None of the other
constituencies have open exec meetings, why would we do that
in the name of transparency?</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I propose we stick to
what Tapani is suggesting. This meeting is a very difficult
one, with a great many conflicts on the agenda for important
policy matters. I have some instances of triple conflicts on
related matters.....My concern is how we manage to actually
cover all the meetings we need to with the small crew we have
on the ground. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie</font></font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-10-29 12:48, Edward Morris
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:4ad6892fcf55426dad9fe3403e86dc43@toast.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<span style="font-family: 'Lucida Sans Unicode','Lucida
Grande',Sans-Serif; font-size: 14px">
<div>Hmmm...</div>
<div> </div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select:
none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select:
none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select:
none;"> </div>
<div> </div>
<hr align="center" size="2" width="100%">
<div>
<div> </div>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande"><em>I think this
is a more sensible approach. Most of us have had
experience on PDPs with one or more
disrupters.....wasting a lot of people's time being
difficult,</em> </font></font></p>
<p> </p>
<p>That's often a criticism of many NCSG members in subgroups.
Heck, our mere participation in the RPM group is considered
a disruption by those who believe the purpose of the RPM's
is to provide mechanisms to protect trademark interests
without regard to any other group. One person's disrupter is
another person's hero.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">and we have a
packed agenda at this meeting, it is our big chance to
make progress face to face. Open records is a lot
different than open forum, and we can always allow audio
listen in, with texted questions permitted.</font></font></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hard to do when the NCSG EC post states: </p>
<pre style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Please find below the dial in details for the closed NCSG meetings during ICANN57 in Hyderabad. Please distribute this information on a private list."
</pre>
<div> </div>
<div>Closed means the door is shut behind you. No one who
isn't invited can follow live, transcripts are not
distributed to all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As I'm currently trying to open up the CEP, after being
part of groups that have successfully pressured the Board
and the GAC to become more open, I really can't attend
closed meetings and maintain any sort of consistent
legitimacy. The NCSG should be a leader in opening up
meetings, not lagging the Board and the GAC in transparency
by closing them. We have member Constituencies engaged in
actions concerning membership eligibility in private email
exchanges, our "leaders" meeting with Board members in
closed fashion...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Sad. As I'm not a big fan of "do as I say not what I do"
I hope our SG leadership decides to open things up so I can
attend all the meetings I'm supposed to be at. Otherwise,
like our Members, I'll wait to be told what those involved
chose to tell me. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed Morris</div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">Stephanie Perrin</font></font></p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2016-10-29 03:58, Tapani
Tarvainen wrote:</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20161029075858.whkof5wbpk7zorw2@tarvainen.info"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Hi Ed,
I wasn't actually thinking of closed/open here in terms of secrecy
at all, only about keeping the meetings manageable.
In other (non-ICANN) contexts I've experience with people trying
deliberately disrupt meetings or to hijack them to their own
irrelevant agendas, but even with well-intentioned people meetings get
harder to manage as the number or participants grows, all the way down
to finding big enough room for all. And in negotiations between two
or more groups the number of participants from each side also matters.
I would be 100% in favour of releasing recordings and transcripts of
these meetings publicly as well as letting the whole world listen in,
but making them fully open in terms of participation is not quite as
easy. In practice I expect we'll let in any interested people as long
as space allows, but if we run out of space and some rule is needed to
select who gets in, preferring our own members seems reasonable to me.
Your offer to help in crowd management is welcome, although I suspect
the situation is a bit different in a rock concert than in an ExCom
meeting in a room with space for only 10 people or so.
As for who we need to ask in the cases under discussion, first the
ExComs of NCSG, NCUC and NPOC, then in NCPH case the CSG and in our
leaders' meeting with Board the Board members in question.
I don't really expect any of them to object to transparency, but they
might be hesitant in allowing unlimited and unpredictable number of
actual participants. It certainly has been the case before that we've
had to carefully balance the number of NCSG and CSG participants,
for example.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</span>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>