That seems to be the right answer as far as I'm concerned. I agree with Marilyn and Sarah. Monday May 7th is the first day of the INTA conference so I won't be able to attend the BC meeting. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:52 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade'; Phil Corwin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Thanks Marilyn. I agree with the concerns. If they wanted to remove one Act from the Theater of the Absurd, it should not be the public Board meeting. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:41 AM To: Phil Corwin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings I will write today to the Chairs of the Constituencies/SGs/SOs to ask them their views and concerns. Crocker mentioned it in his comments, but it WAS not consulted with the community in any way. I do think it is a problem for actually fulfilling the transparency of ICANN; however, I would like to hear from other members on your thoughts. It is expensive for business to spend 6-7 days, but the Board will be now lessening its interactions with the community. In my view, at this time, a bad move. ________________________________ From: psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:59:26 +0000 In my opinion, a step backwards for transparency and accountability -- http://www.thedomains.com/2012/04/30/icann-eliminates-friday-public-board-me... . Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

I have a modest counterproposal - all ICANN Board meetings should be web or audio-cast live in real time. Now that would use the tools of Web 2.0 to achieve greater transparency. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Hansen, Anjali [mailto:AHansen@council.bbb.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 9:25 AM To: 'Deutsch, Sarah B'; 'Marilyn Cade'; Phil Corwin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings That seems to be the right answer as far as I'm concerned. I agree with Marilyn and Sarah. Monday May 7th is the first day of the INTA conference so I won't be able to attend the BC meeting. Anjali Karina Hansen | Associate General Counsel Tel: 703-247-9340 Fax: 703-276-0634 Email: ahansen@council.bbb.org<mailto:ahansen@council.bbb.org> www.bbb.org<http://www.bbb.org/> | Start With Trust Council of Better Business Bureaus, Inc. 3033 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201 For consumer tips, scams and alerts: Read our blog <http://www.bbb.org/blog/>Find us on: Twitter<http://www.twitter.com/bbb_us> | Facebook<http://www.facebook.com/pages/Better-Business-Bureau-US/25368131403> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=1917928&trk=anet_ug_grppro> | YouTube<http://www.youtube.com/user/BBBconsumerTips> | Flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbb_us> [Description: Description: Description: BBBAnniversarycolor]<http://www.bbb.org/100-year> This message is a private communication, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you have received this message by mistake, please notify the sender by reply email and then delete the message from your system without printing, copying or forwarding it. Thank you. From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Deutsch, Sarah B Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 8:52 AM To: 'Marilyn Cade'; Phil Corwin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Thanks Marilyn. I agree with the concerns. If they wanted to remove one Act from the Theater of the Absurd, it should not be the public Board meeting. Sarah B. Deutsch Vice President & Associate General Counsel Verizon Communications Phone: 703-351-3044 Fax: 703-351-3670 From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 6:41 AM To: Phil Corwin; bc - GNSO list Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings I will write today to the Chairs of the Constituencies/SGs/SOs to ask them their views and concerns. Crocker mentioned it in his comments, but it WAS not consulted with the community in any way. I do think it is a problem for actually fulfilling the transparency of ICANN; however, I would like to hear from other members on your thoughts. It is expensive for business to spend 6-7 days, but the Board will be now lessening its interactions with the community. In my view, at this time, a bad move. ________________________________ From: psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:59:26 +0000 In my opinion, a step backwards for transparency and accountability -- http://www.thedomains.com/2012/04/30/icann-eliminates-friday-public-board-me... . Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

Mike: I understand that some issues have to be discussed in private. But if the starting point was that all Board meetings were virtually open and closure was an exception it shouldn't be a big issue to structure meetings so that matters held in confidence were dealt with at the beginning or end of each meeting. Instead the new default position is that all Board meetings take place behind closed doors and no transcripts are made available, just condensed "minutes". This is not transparency. Fully agree that full transcripts with appropriate redactions should be made available - but I'd raise you one and also ask that mp3 recordings be made available, because that would best capture what really went on. And, yes, those three closed door meetings that took place in San Jose should have been open to public review - sunlight is the best disinfectant. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:26 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Phil, Having served on the ICANN Board this is not really an option given that there are some materials that cannot be discussed in public (real time). I believe there is a much easier and transparent solution, require the publication of all transcripts and all supporting documentation with appropriate redactions by ICANN within 72 hours of the meeting. We should be asking ourselves the following questions. There were four board meeting held in Costa Rica, why are the transcripts from only one of those meetings now available? Two of the other meetings held discussed conflicts of interests and the selection of gTLD providers. Would anyone that attended the Costa Rica would have like to sit in on those meetings as oppose to the joke of a public meeting held on Friday? Best regards, Michael P.S. Here are the four Board meetings that were held in Costa Rica: March 14th (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-2-14mar12-en.htm) and (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-14mar12-en.htm) , one on March 15th (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-15mar12-en.htm) and the ten minute joke of a meeting on March 16th (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-16mar12-en.htm).

All ICANN constituencies and working groups regularly produce mp3 recordings of their proceedings. When there's a confidential matter they turn off the recording. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: Michael D. Palage [mailto:michael@palage.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 11:16 AM To: Phil Corwin; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Phil/ Marilyn, Been there, requested that. The problem with the MP3 recordings is redacting them in a timely fashion. A written transcript strikes the proper balance, and is totally consistent with that they have done in connection with their historical Board meetings held at regional meetings. This is an issue I pushed hard during my tenure on the Board. I used to ask the Board and the General Counsel to explain the different treatment of transcriptions for one set of meetings and no transcription for another set of meetings, no one could give me a straight answer. You know as an attorney that is always a good sign for your client/cause. I think asking for MP3 is overreach and would just be blown off. Asking for a consistent standard based on 10 years of precedent is a much stronger statement. We have a narrow window in which to act, I think the community getting behind one standard and requesting action is the best option. Marilyn, at least one Board member has indicated that the Board did engage in consultation with the ACs and SOs. Could either you or any of the other elected BC reps share in this consultation/outreach that was undertaken. I do not recall this ever being shared/discussed with the full membership. Best regards, Michael From: Phil Corwin [mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]<mailto:[mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com]> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:54 AM To: Michael D. Palage; 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Mike: I understand that some issues have to be discussed in private. But if the starting point was that all Board meetings were virtually open and closure was an exception it shouldn't be a big issue to structure meetings so that matters held in confidence were dealt with at the beginning or end of each meeting. Instead the new default position is that all Board meetings take place behind closed doors and no transcripts are made available, just condensed "minutes". This is not transparency. Fully agree that full transcripts with appropriate redactions should be made available - but I'd raise you one and also ask that mp3 recordings be made available, because that would best capture what really went on. And, yes, those three closed door meetings that took place in San Jose should have been open to public review - sunlight is the best disinfectant. Best, Philip Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]<mailto:[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org]> On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 10:26 AM To: 'bc - GNSO list' Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Phil, Having served on the ICANN Board this is not really an option given that there are some materials that cannot be discussed in public (real time). I believe there is a much easier and transparent solution, require the publication of all transcripts and all supporting documentation with appropriate redactions by ICANN within 72 hours of the meeting. We should be asking ourselves the following questions. There were four board meeting held in Costa Rica, why are the transcripts from only one of those meetings now available? Two of the other meetings held discussed conflicts of interests and the selection of gTLD providers. Would anyone that attended the Costa Rica would have like to sit in on those meetings as oppose to the joke of a public meeting held on Friday? Best regards, Michael P.S. Here are the four Board meetings that were held in Costa Rica: March 14th (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-2-14mar12-en.htm) and (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-14mar12-en.htm) , one on March 15th (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-15mar12-en.htm) and the ten minute joke of a meeting on March 16th (http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-16mar12-en.htm).

Just posted this at the ICA website - http://internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Board_Transparency ICANN Board Meetings Should be Webcast Live ICANN has just announced that, starting with the June meeting in Prague, the ICANN Board will no longer meet and cast votes on the final day of its three annual public meetings (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30apr12-en.htm). We think this is an ill-advised step backwards from ICANN's commitment to transparency and the accountability that accompanies it. We also believe that ICANN should have told "the community" it was considering this major change and asked for public comment before making such a decision. Just because all the ICANN meetings we have attended since ICA's formation ended with a Board meeting doesn't mean that particular scheduling is sacrosanct. But we think it's very beneficial for the global Internet community that ICANN serves to be able to view its decision-making process - and that it's a big plus for ICANN's credibility and reputation to open that process to public view. Those of us who regularly attend ICANN meetings have some opportunity to mingle and converse with Board members. But that's quite different than being able to observe their group interaction, especially when there's a tough vote on a controversial issue. Last year, it was beneficial for all that the Board debate and vote on .XXX in San Francisco, and on launching the new gTLD program in Singapore, were done in the light of day and before a live audience. As Board members stated their positions on the vote before them they knew their arguments were being weighed not just by fellow Board members but by the public at large. The sharp open exchanges enhanced the legitimacy of the resulting vote. We also think this decision is particularly ill-timed, given that ICANN has just embarked upon the most ambitious and risk-prone program in its history - the near-simultaneous launch of thousands of new gTLDs. Given that even the application period has been marred by the TAS shutdown, any Board action taken to deal with that glitch or any additional new gTLD problems or issues should be discussed in full public view. ICANN's stated rationale for the decision to go opaque is "We believe that the removal of the Friday public Board meeting and its replacement with two Board community sessions will improve the effectiveness of both the Board and the staff and increase the time that the Board has to interact with the community.". We enjoy our interaction with the Board, but we don't see how voting in private increases the Board's effectiveness - and it certainly runs counter to ICANN's stated commitment to transparency. Nowadays any public policy body that makes its decisions behind closed doors is going to be perceived as having something to hide. Here's a thought experiment: Controversial as they were, imagine if the Board votes on .XXX and new gTLDs had been made out of public view and announced after the fact. Would ICANN have been more or less effective today as a result? In reacting to this news release it struck us that, just as we've taken it for granted that every ICANN meeting ends with an open Board session, we've also accepted that the majority of Board meetings take place in private and are underreported. Indeed, the only Board meetings for which transcripts are ever released are those that have already taken place in public. All the rest are reported, tardily, only by dry minutes that convey very little of what actually took place (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings).This is in stark contrast to every ICANN constituency and working group, which release mp3 audio recordings within hours after each meeting - so why should the transparency that permeates ICANN stop at the Boardroom door? In 2012, in the age of Web 2.0, this does not strike us as acceptable - especially for the technical coordinator of the DNS charged with serving the global public interest. There's a lot of U.S. DNA in the DNS. ICANN was created by the U.S. government and is a California non-profit corporation. Even though the U.S. has officially terminated direct oversight, the technical foundation for ICANN's DNS policy decisions is the IANA contract currently being re-considered by the U. S. Department of Commerce. Sessions of the U.S. House and Senate, and virtually every hearing and markup of every Congressional committee, are now Webcast in real time and then archived for future viewing. ICANN should do no less. Every official ICANN Board meeting should be webcast in real time. When the Board is meeting telephonically then the Web audiocast should be available simultaneously. And all should be archived for future access and review. Only limited redactions should be made, such as when the Board is discussing internal personnel matters or when the proprietary and confidential information of a contracted party might be revealed, and then only if a rationale is provided. ICANN's continued authority ultimately rests upon the consent of the networked, and in 2012 the networked expect open access to information about vital decisions with broad repercussions. And, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once observed, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We still think that ICANN should reconsider its decision to end open physical Board meetings. But, regardless of whether it reverses course, all future Board meetings should be open virtually. It's past time for the public body that manages the global DNS to start using the tools of Web 2.0 to achieve complete transparency of process and decision-making. The global Internet community that ICANN serves should expect nothing less. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings I agree with prior comments. In the early days, Esther and I and the Board had an unwritten rule that we would not act on significant resolutions in a telephone meeting. We didn't always meet that standard, but we tried. Some other considerations: - If the Board is saying that it is only going to have telephone meetings, then it is very bad practice, to say nothing of transparency, to attempt to engage in substantive discussion and debate over the telephone. - if the Board is saying that it will meet face to face to do business, other than at scheduled ICANN meetings, then there is no reason for such meetings not to be public, at least to some reasonable extent. We are not talking about renting Rockefeller Center. And webcast as well. - In an increasingly broadband world, there is no reason not to save some money by doing regional meetings, linked by real time video. - the NomCom, and others, have been concerned about the exorbitant workload imposed on ICANN Directors. By any corporate standard, the current demands have been and are unreasonable, and have the negative result that qualified people can not serve, regardless of whether there are Director fees on the table, or not. The most talented people are already busy people, by definition. - Mike On May 1, 2012, at 3:40 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: I will write today to the Chairs of the Constituencies/SGs/SOs to ask them their views and concerns. Crocker mentioned it in his comments, but it WAS not consulted with the community in any way. I do think it is a problem for actually fulfilling the transparency of ICANN; however, I would like to hear from other members on your thoughts. It is expensive for business to spend 6-7 days, but the Board will be now lessening its interactions with the community. In my view, at this time, a bad move. ________________________________ From: psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:59:26 +0000 In my opinion, a step backwards for transparency and accountability -- http://www.thedomains.com/2012/04/30/icann-eliminates-friday-public-board-me... . Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2411/4970 - Release Date: 04/30/12

Thanks Fred, much appreciated. Kevin Murphy has just published a good piece on this at http://domainincite.com/icann-cancels-fridays-bad-for-transparency/ --- ... No Friday means no public meeting of the board of directors. While the move is being characterized as an effort to enhance the effectiveness of ICANN's board - a particular concern, frequently voiced, of chairman Steve Crocker - it's also a perplexing shift away from ICANN's core tenet of transparency. One of the effects could be to mask dissent on the board.

From now on, it appears that all of ICANN's top-level decision-making will happen in private...

That may well be true - time will tell - but let's look at what the ICANN community is almost certainly losing. First, there will be no more transcripts of board meetings at all. Today, only the public meetings have published recordings and transcripts. Intersessional meetings are minuted, but not transcribed. If recordings are made, they are not published. Killing off transcripts completely is a pretty obvious step backwards for an organization committed by its bylaws to "operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". Second, if there is dissent on the board, it will be essentially shielded from the community's view for some time after the fact... With that in mind, it's clear that killing off the public board meetings could in no way be seen as a positive step for transparency at ICANN. It's true that these meetings have for several years been pure theater, but it was theater with value. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC   "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey -----Original Message----- From: Frederick Felman [mailto:Frederick.Felman@markmonitor.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 10:01 AM To: Phil Corwin Cc: Mike Roberts; Marilyn Cade; bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings I think you are spot on Phil. Especially considering the conflict of interest problems including contracted parties on the board. Sent from my mobile +1(415)606-3733 (please excuse any content I might blame on apple's absurd and comical autocorrect including but not limited to typos) On May 1, 2012, at 5:44 PM, "Phil Corwin" <psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com>> wrote: Just posted this at the ICA website - http://internetcommerce.org/ICANN_Board_Transparency ICANN Board Meetings Should be Webcast Live ICANN has just announced that, starting with the June meeting in Prague, the ICANN Board will no longer meet and cast votes on the final day of its three annual public meetings (http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-30apr12-en.htm). We think this is an ill-advised step backwards from ICANN's commitment to transparency and the accountability that accompanies it. We also believe that ICANN should have told "the community" it was considering this major change and asked for public comment before making such a decision. Just because all the ICANN meetings we have attended since ICA's formation ended with a Board meeting doesn't mean that particular scheduling is sacrosanct. But we think it's very beneficial for the global Internet community that ICANN serves to be able to view its decision-making process - and that it's a big plus for ICANN's credibility and reputation to open that process to public view. Those of us who regularly attend ICANN meetings have some opportunity to mingle and converse with Board members. But that's quite different than being able to observe their group interaction, especially when there's a tough vote on a controversial issue. Last year, it was beneficial for all that the Board debate and vote on .XXX in San Francisco, and on launching the new gTLD program in Singapore, were done in the light of day and before a live audience. As Board members stated their positions on the vote before them they knew their arguments were being weighed not just by fellow Board members but by the public at large. The sharp open exchanges enhanced the legitimacy of the resulting vote. We also think this decision is particularly ill-timed, given that ICANN has just embarked upon the most ambitious and risk-prone program in its history - the near-simultaneous launch of thousands of new gTLDs. Given that even the application period has been marred by the TAS shutdown, any Board action taken to deal with that glitch or any additional new gTLD problems or issues should be discussed in full public view. ICANN's stated rationale for the decision to go opaque is "We believe that the removal of the Friday public Board meeting and its replacement with two Board community sessions will improve the effectiveness of both the Board and the staff and increase the time that the Board has to interact with the community.". We enjoy our interaction with the Board, but we don't see how voting in private increases the Board's effectiveness - and it certainly runs counter to ICANN's stated commitment to transparency. Nowadays any public policy body that makes its decisions behind closed doors is going to be perceived as having something to hide. Here's a thought experiment: Controversial as they were, imagine if the Board votes on .XXX and new gTLDs had been made out of public view and announced after the fact. Would ICANN have been more or less effective today as a result? In reacting to this news release it struck us that, just as we've taken it for granted that every ICANN meeting ends with an open Board session, we've also accepted that the majority of Board meetings take place in private and are underreported. Indeed, the only Board meetings for which transcripts are ever released are those that have already taken place in public. All the rest are reported, tardily, only by dry minutes that convey very little of what actually took place (see http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings).This is in stark contrast to every ICANN constituency and working group, which release mp3 audio recordings within hours after each meeting - so why should the transparency that permeates ICANN stop at the Boardroom door? In 2012, in the age of Web 2.0, this does not strike us as acceptable - especially for the technical coordinator of the DNS charged with serving the global public interest. There's a lot of U.S. DNA in the DNS. ICANN was created by the U.S. government and is a California non-profit corporation. Even though the U.S. has officially terminated direct oversight, the technical foundation for ICANN's DNS policy decisions is the IANA contract currently being re-considered by the U. S. Department of Commerce. Sessions of the U.S. House and Senate, and virtually every hearing and markup of every Congressional committee, are now Webcast in real time and then archived for future viewing. ICANN should do no less. Every official ICANN Board meeting should be webcast in real time. When the Board is meeting telephonically then the Web audiocast should be available simultaneously. And all should be archived for future access and review. Only limited redactions should be made, such as when the Board is discussing internal personnel matters or when the proprietary and confidential information of a contracted party might be revealed, and then only if a rationale is provided. ICANN's continued authority ultimately rests upon the consent of the networked, and in 2012 the networked expect open access to information about vital decisions with broad repercussions. And, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once observed, sunlight is the best disinfectant. We still think that ICANN should reconsider its decision to end open physical Board meetings. But, regardless of whether it reverses course, all future Board meetings should be open virtually. It's past time for the public body that manages the global DNS to start using the tools of Web 2.0 to achieve complete transparency of process and decision-making. The global Internet community that ICANN serves should expect nothing less. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: owner-bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org> [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Roberts Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2012 3:53 PM To: Marilyn Cade Cc: bc - GNSO list Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings I agree with prior comments. In the early days, Esther and I and the Board had an unwritten rule that we would not act on significant resolutions in a telephone meeting. We didn't always meet that standard, but we tried. Some other considerations: - If the Board is saying that it is only going to have telephone meetings, then it is very bad practice, to say nothing of transparency, to attempt to engage in substantive discussion and debate over the telephone. - if the Board is saying that it will meet face to face to do business, other than at scheduled ICANN meetings, then there is no reason for such meetings not to be public, at least to some reasonable extent. We are not talking about renting Rockefeller Center. And webcast as well. - In an increasingly broadband world, there is no reason not to save some money by doing regional meetings, linked by real time video. - the NomCom, and others, have been concerned about the exorbitant workload imposed on ICANN Directors. By any corporate standard, the current demands have been and are unreasonable, and have the negative result that qualified people can not serve, regardless of whether there are Director fees on the table, or not. The most talented people are already busy people, by definition. - Mike On May 1, 2012, at 3:40 AM, Marilyn Cade wrote: I will write today to the Chairs of the Constituencies/SGs/SOs to ask them their views and concerns. Crocker mentioned it in his comments, but it WAS not consulted with the community in any way. I do think it is a problem for actually fulfilling the transparency of ICANN; however, I would like to hear from other members on your thoughts. It is expensive for business to spend 6-7 days, but the Board will be now lessening its interactions with the community. In my view, at this time, a bad move. ________________________________ From: psc@vlaw-dc.com<mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com> To: bc-gnso@icann.org<mailto:bc-gnso@icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] ICANN Eliminates Board Meetings at ICANN Meetings Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:59:26 +0000 In my opinion, a step backwards for transparency and accountability -- http://www.thedomains.com/2012/04/30/icann-eliminates-friday-public-board-me... . Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2411/4970 - Release Date: 04/30/12 ----- No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.2169 / Virus Database: 2411/4973 - Release Date: 05/02/12