[PC-NCSG] PC-NCSG mail list transparency

[Rafik Dammak]

Hi Bill,

just for clarification, the lists are public and archived, the links are
displayed in NCSG wiki space (no need to login anywhere) and anybody can
access to them. the fact that google cannot crawl the whole content is
something else and has nothing to do being public or not.
but definitely this thread is public and accessible .

Best,

Rafik

2016-03-22 21:29 GMT+09:00 William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com>:

> Hi Kathy
>
> I was going to say "I?m not sure what you mean by private not for
> redistribution? since this is a publicly archived list, but then I
> remembered?it?s not all that publicly accessible. Google didn?t find
> NCSG-PC much less the list five pages in, it seems the best technique is to
> log into Confluence, and navigate through NCSG menus to
> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/NCSG+Email+Discussion+Archive...we
> might want to consider this at some point in the context of SO/AC
> accountability/transparency.  Just a thought.
>
> On the event in question, there are obviously a lot of issues and views
> about them.  I understand the NCUC EC intends to say something?personally I
> don?t know how deeply we want to get into commenting on the incident and
> the things she and others have said about it.  Obviously there should be a
> policy. As I mentioned elsewhere it?s not clear other entities holding lots
> of meetings with delegates and mixed business/receptions, such as the UN,
> are better than ICANN, which makes me a bit unconformable with bashing the
> org and staff.   So hopefully as this evolves we get the tone as well as
> the facts right.
>
> Bill
>
>
> On Mar 22, 2016, at 13:02, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com> wrote:
>
> *private*
> *not for redistribution*
>
> Hi All,
> Within the confines of this group, I wanted to share a concern about the
> statement Padmini posted on Friday. She says she was discouraged from
> speaking about her experiences, but my understanding is that was not the
> case.
>
> Padmini wanted to speak out at the first Public Forum on Monday afternoon
> without preparation for the presentation. Four independent ICANN leaders --
> two women and two men -- arrived at the same advice. That this first Public
> Forum of ICANN, on the opening day of the meeting, was not the right time
> and place.  Everyone was focused on issues of accountability and transition
> issues. Further, the ICANN Board, would be caught offguard and perhaps
> continue the pattern of "inappropriate responses" (as it was already
> established that few in ICANN were trained in what she considered
> appropriate responses). Such a presentation, in that place, at that moment
> in time, and without preparation, would likely compound the problem, not
> reduce it.  That was the advice.
>
> When the Board raised the Diversity question to the NCSG (the next day), I
> quickly contacted Padmini to let her know that there was a good moment for
> the issues she wanted to raise coming up -- with the audience she wanted to
> raise it with. I offered to assist with the presentation. Several people
> from the group above worked with her on the presentation. At least two
> people from the group above independently notified the Board of the
> sensitive issues about to be raised. She gave a good presentation of the
> issues before the Board in a public place at a proper time; they responded
> appropriately.
>
> That was the advice - matching the speech to an appropriate time and
> place.
>
> *private*
> *not for redistribution*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20160322/cbe973c4/attachment-0001.html>