Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested: Section 126.96.36.199 Introductions
- To: Working Group <gnso-ppsc-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested: Section 188.8.131.52 Introductions
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 13:31:09 -0400
On 22 Apr 2010, at 05:17, Marika Konings wrote:
> From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines
> 184.108.40.206 Introductions
> For team-building purposes, to understand its resources and capabilities and,
> potentially, to help with prospective assignments, members of the Working
> Group should be provided with the opportunity, at the start of the first
> meeting, to share information regarding interests, background, skills,
> experience, especially as related to any requirements in the Charter,
> Members of the Working Group should be informed that all GNSO Working Groups
> are expected to operate under the principles of transparency and openness,
> which means, inter alia, that mailing lists are publicly archived, meetings
> are normally recorded and/or transcribed, and SOIs are required from Working
> Group participants which will be publicly posted.
> GD: Section 220.127.116.11 establishes instructions for the initial meeting of the
> working group, and emphasizes the ICANN principles of transparency and
> openness with regard to working group meetings, deliberations, and documents.
> However, does the PPSC WG-WT envision any exceptional scenarios in which the
> working group would desire confidentiality? There may be value in this,
> especially if the subject matter involves DNS security and stability
> vulnerabilities. Should the PPSC WG-WT consider an exception to the
> transparency requirement, it should set a high threshold for making such a
> request, and establish a clear process for disclosing the final output of any
> closed deliberations.
I don't think the GNSO should ever do something without transparency and
clarity. Other groups like SSAC might.
But if such a thing is conceived of, it should only happen after a
supermajority vote of the Council deems it to be necessary. and this rule
would need to be included either in the PDP doc or the Procedures doc in order
to be possible. I do not think a WG should be able to close itself of.