Re: [gnso-ppsc-wg] Your feedback requested: Section 2.1.4.1 Introductions

["Soininen, Jonne (NSN-FI/Espoo)" <Jonne.Soininen@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

Late, but before the meeting...

Below:


On 4/22/10 12:17 PM, "ext Marika Konings" <marika.konings@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From the GNSO Working Group Guidelines
> 
> 2.1.4.1      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.
> 
> ________________________________
> Comment
> 
> GD: Section 2.1.4.1 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 really cannot find any reason for a working group to be closed. I think it
is clearer that everything is open, and if there is something that 1) needs
a WG, 2) affects the stability of the Internet, that job should be done
quickly enough that having an open WG wouldn't be a problem.

I believe it is a slippery slope if we start to declare some WGs closed, and
that will most probably be used wrongly, and too often.

Cheers,

Jonne.