Dear All Dear Bruce I think one of the steps to be taken is that the entire Board,s meeting be webcasted and on line captioned and fully recorded and transcript to be nade available within 24 hours ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> Date: 2014-12-30 15:12 GMT+01:00 Subject: Re: [Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft To: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> Bruce Pls then forward it to every one on my behalf Kavouss 2014-12-30 2:27 GMT+01:00 Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>:
Hello Kavouss,
Thanks for your suggestion.
Note I think you post just went to me rather than the full mailing list.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
-----Original Message----- From: Kavouss Arasteh [mailto:kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2014 2:29 AM To: Bruce Tonkin Subject: Re: [Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft
Dear All Dear Bruce I think one of the steps to be taken is that the entire Board,s meeting be webcasted and on line captioned and fully recorded and transcript to be nade available within 24 hours Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Dec 2014, at 10:00, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Phil,
hopefully the final recommendations will be so broadly supported within the community that Board cherry-picking will be limited or nonexistent.
Yes - that is the Board's hope also.
What is most concerning is that the community has little or any information by which to judge how the Board has reached difficult decisions on public interest matters in the past. As you note in regard to the .XXX decision, "Several directors spent considerable time preparing their own personal statements on that matter that were delivered in the public forum." Similarly, I remember a vigorous public debate and statements when the Board voted to let the new gTLD program proceed and accept applications. But we no longer have public Board meetings, and the materials released pertaining to Board meetings are quite opaque regarding how decisions are reached or whether dissents took place, and of course we have no transcripts of Board meetings or access to other relevant communications related to Board decision-making. I do note that the October 16th resolution further states that a rationale will be provided for any Board rejection of CCWG recommendations, and a further dialo gue initiated, but that is still inferior to being able to witness or at least read the full Board debate on such matters.
It has been widely recognized that transparency is a fundamental requirement for accountability, yet the transparency of the Board's decision-making process is greatly lacking at present. I know that view prevails within the Commercial Stakeholders Group, and my perception is that other parts of the community share it as well. It is my hope that this CCWG process will lead to much greater transparency in that area and that the Board will recognize that such transparency is very much in the global public interest.
That is good feedback. I was at one time the Chair of the DNSO and then later chair of the GNSO. Over the time I was chair we put in place transparency steps including making recordings of the meetings available publicly and also transcripts. In my time there was only about two people in the community that ever listed to the audio recordings - but in principle they were available to everyone. I personally support that approach in principle, but it is not yet a Board view.
I just reviewed the minutes of the Board meeting of 28 Oct 2014: https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2014-10-28-en
The minutes state with respect to moving the meeting location in Feb 2015:
" The Board engaged in an intense conversation on the topic, with some Board members noting their personal preference that the meeting proceed in Marrakech as scheduled, given that it is difficult to know what the situation will be in Marrakech in February. However, even with a personal preference to keep the meeting location, there are risks to proceeding with that decision that may require the meeting to be postponed."
The minutes also note that the decision was not unanimous:
" Twelve Board members voted in favor of Resolutions 2014.10.28.02, 2014.10.28.03, 2014.10.28.04, 2014.10.28.05, 2014.10.28.06 and 2014.10.28.07. Gonzalo Navarro and Mike Silber were opposed to the Resolutions. Markus Kummer abstained from voting on the resolutions. Kuo-Wei Wu was unavailable to vote. The Resolutions carried."
In that meeting I recall that nearly every Board member spoke on the topic - some in favour of moving the location, and some in favour of keeping it in the original location. There were well articulated views that could have been made public in my own personal view.
It would certainly be helpful if the CCWG on accountability did articulate what they would like to see in terms of transparency from Board meetings. Note however - that in many cases significant discussion on a controversial topic occurs over several months - with much of the dialogue occurring in Board workshops (for example the Board holds at least two face-to-face workshops during the year, and also meets on the weekend prior to the ICNAN public meeting week, as well as during the week in workshop format). In many ways the Board functions like a GNSO or IETF working group - with numerous discussions, before a topic reaches decision. The current chair - Steve Crocker - tries as much as possible to ensure that a Board resolution has matured to the point where it can be approved unanimously. I agree however that the community sees the end product, and not the intermediate steps.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1