Comments on Meetings

["David Archbold" <david.archbold@xxxxxxx>]

I agree with CIRA's comments about both the need to tie this consultation in 
with the accountability and transparency consultation, and the need to more 
formally define the consultation process itself.  It's a pity that there was no 
opportunity to raise these issues during the meeting in São Paulo.  That said, 
I have the following general comments about meetings:

1.      Frequency.  If the number of meetings were reduced from three, ICANN 
productivity would decrease.  The face-to-face contact and the 
discipline/deadlines that the meetings impose on remote work groups are 
essential.
2.      Hub Cities.  One in three meetings at a hub city might be beneficial, 
but depending upon where you're travelling from, the benefit might not be 
significant.
3.      Status of Meetings.  All meetings should be public by default 
(including GAC), though there may be 3 rather than 2 types:
   a.   Public - with public participation
   b.   Public - attendance only, no participation
   c.   Closed - in exceptional circumstance, with a public explanation of the 
need.
Status of meetings should be published in advance (including justification if 
closed).  Generally, no meeting need be closed in its entirety.  Agendas should 
be arranged so that meeting is closed only for items that genuinely require 
confidentiality.

I endorse all other recommendations of the discussion paper.

David A Archbold
Managing Director
Information & Communications Technology Authority
& .ky Domain Manager
david.archbold@xxxxxxx
www.icta.ky