On 03/21/2010 06:10 PM, Vanda UOL wrote:
So, I do believe, and any one which is not just an academic or a public servant knows very well that particularities of contracts are always debated in privacy.
I disagree. ICANN is *not* an independent private party and it is *not* negotiating a private contract. Rather in these meetings and negotiations ICANN is engaging in a regulatory act, defining what a registrar/registry may or may not do and directly and materially affecting the rights of the public. ICANN is created and exists under the law to act serve the public and promote the public interest. ICANN is *our* agent. ICANN obtains exemptions from taxation on the condition that ICANN act in the public interest. Private meetings and closed negotiations are exactly that - private and closed sessions in which promises are made to act or to refrain from acting. The absolutely fundamental foundation of accountability is for us, the public for whose benefit ICANN exists, to know what ICANN is giving up, what ICANN is gaining, and why. Closed meetings make a mockery of that foundation of accountability. Indeed closed meetings create non-accountability. If ICANN wants to engage in private negotiations and meetings then ICANN should drop the facade of being a public interest corporation with tax exemptions and some protections from director liability and it should re-incorporate itself as a private stock corporation. Of course, were ICANN to do that it would stand clearly in the harsh light of the question whether ICANN is a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade under the laws of the United States, the EU, or any other nation in which it has a presence of substantial effect. I am rather surprised that any registrar or registry would attend a private meeting - attendance at such meetings makes it more likely that attending registrars or registries will be be dragged in should there be an inquiry whether ICANN is acting on contravention of the laws of fair competition. --karl--