Hello everyone, As part of yesterday's session in Nairobi, ALAC heard a presentation from staffer Tim Cole regarding ICANN-run regional meetings held for registrars and registries. Contrary to previous suggestions, what I'd heard indicated that meeting organizers really have learned nothing from the backlash to the Toronto and Rome events. While there may be advance notice of the meetings that did not occur before, Cole was adamant that these ICANN-funded meetings will refuse admission to anyone except contracted parties. While we will have access to the slides given at the meetings, proceedings of the meetings have not and will not be recorded. In a subsequent conversation, Cole said I was "wasting my time" trying to get ICANN to change this policy; while on one hand insisting that the meetings contained absolutly no confidential discussion, he insisted that the presence of public observers would have a "chilling effect" on discussions. I personally do not believe that ICANN should fund meetings that are completely closed, especially meetings that could open its process to those who may be more easily able to attend the regional meetings (that are local to them) than full ICANN meetings. I suggested there were ways to ensure that attendees were aware that meeting content was technical and not policy. Not enough.
From an At-Large perspective I personally consider this a transparency issue, feeding public belief that ICANN is merely a trade association for contracted parties. If registrars and/or registries want to organize, fully fund their own meetings and invite ICANN staff to speak, that's their choice. But meetings planned and mostly funded by ICANN should not be restricted this way.
Taking Cole at his word that we are wasting time trying to influence staff, different tactics may be in order. Perhaps this is something best dealt with through the still-forming AoC committee on transparency and accountability. Or maybe this can be taken up directly to the Board since we do have that channel available. On the other hand, one ALAC member told me after Cole's presentation that pressing the issue would be burning bridges just as ALAC is trying to enhance its relationship with other ICANN communities, and we have more pressing matters. What do others think? Is this an issue worth persuing, or a risk worth avoiding? - Evan