On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM, McTim <dogwallah@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 6:43 PM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande-walle.eu
wrote:
On 13 Mar 2010, at 14:14, Jorge Amodio wrote:
With all due respect, if that's your understanding and position, I'm now extremely concerned that you have been selected to be ALAC's liaison to the board.
What kind of interests are you representing ?
I expressed earlier similar views to those of Vanda and Hong WRT ICANN business meetings with registrars. Business meetings are, per definition, closed. Whether this is a one-to-one meeting or a one-to-many does not make a big difference.
Seems to me to be a significant difference.
That's my understanding as well. Openness and transparency is a question of principle and I strongly believe that ALAC must try on every instance to advocate in that direction. If somebody want's to advocate for other interests, there are other parts of the house where that may be more appropriate.
One is a private contractual negotiation, the other is a group discussion about the rules that all registrars and registries must follow.
I'd not mind a private meeting of an individual biz with ICANN as you say for a contract negotiation or to deal with issues that may require certain level of confidentiality. Now being ICANN a nonprofit public benefit corporation I'd find very troubling if we are now funding "closed" meetings for a particular constituency without giving a chance to other constituencies to be part of the meeting or have a saying. Despite the latest gaffe from the CEO, ICANN is not just funded by the registries and registrars, the food chain starts with the people (individuals, corporations, or other organizations) paying for the names, as I told Rod in a tweet, without "us" there is no "you", and there would be no ICANN as you kow it.
Perhaps I have missed something?
I guess you are not alone. Cheers+1 Jorge