Since an objection to the meeting being closed has been registered (the request for a change didn't come from the chair - or me, if you are curious, but I will keep in confidence who it was unless that person wishes to speak up), we will continue with the existing code. I hope everyone understands that I'm protecting the person who made the request out of respect for them, as they would undoubtedly receive a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative nature and I think that facilitating that serves no purpose. If that means I get a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative mail instead, so be it ;) On 9 Jul 2007, at 08:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hello Nick,
Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I have been asked to change the access code and send out individual emails to the community with the new code.
Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who made the request? As much as I find Danny's contributions notable only for their pointlessness and intent to outrage, I don't consider them reason for us to close the meeting. We still have an real interest in transparency, and should resist the temptation to go private at the smallest hint of disquiet.
We generally have good people, who are ready to move forward with real projects which I believe will increase useful public involvement in ICANN processes. I have confidence that our chair and other participants have the skills and desire to hold a productive meeting.
If it is determined by our chair that today's call is completely unmanagable because of individuals deliberately working to disrupt, alternative plans can be developed. In the meantime, IMO we should work to keep processes as transparent and accessible as possible.
Unless it was the NARALO chair who specifically requested the change in access codes, I request that we revert to the status quo of an open meeting. While the confcall may indeed be subject of a hijack attempt, we have an obligation to make our best attempt at an open process.
Just as I appreciated the ability to sit in (and even occasionally contrinute) at LACRALO and ALAC meetings in San Juan, I see no reason to deliberately avoid an audience for our own efforts.
Danny's email, while it represents a naive and contrary POV, is not in itself sufficient justification to run and hide. We should not let a committment to openness be so easily intimidated. I'm not.
- Evan