Large meetings where many interests are represented, yes, they must be open.
Otherwise it is not an open, democratic process. You and Richard Sexton
think you can change the meaning of an open process. I don't think you can.
> I believe that there *can* be closed meetings
> in an open process, if they are part of a *fair*
> process.
To the ORSC, a process is fair if you are included in it. Whatever you are
not included in, to you is unfair. Alright. But you don't extend the same to
others. You pretend that the January 21st meeting can be fair because you
are there. To those who are excluded - the end-users, the DNSO.org
participants, and others - it isn't fair. Can't you understand this simple
thing? All it takes is putting yourselves in the position of others. Aren't
you capable of that?
> And while I expect to learn more about
> this closed meeting before it actually occurs,
> until I know otherwise, I will assume that it
> is part of a fair process. That's why I am
> currently planning on attending.
>From the very outset, it hasn't be done fairly. There were no public
announcements about it; to the contrary, the public announcement invited
people to a meeting on the 22nd, making no mention of the supposed
"preparatory" meeting on the 21st, a clearly dishonest and unfair thing to
do. Anyone with a true sense of fairness would have to immediately conclude
that this was not a fair process. If you assume that it is, it can only be
because your sense of fairness is not well developed.
(snip)
> Remember, nine organizations are designated as
> a "contributing organization." Each of these
> organizations get to invite three people to a
> closed meeting. In turn, these attendees *can*,
> depending on the process rules for the closed
> meeting, impact the entire event.
I have not been invited. The people who were at Monterrey and whom I trust
to protest against anything that would injure my interests have not been
invited. Tom Lowenhaupt has not been invited. The DNRC, to my knowledge, has
not been invited, unless Mikki Barry is representing the DNRC, but, since
she is also associated with the ORSC, I can't rely on that. There is no one
from any community network invited, so far as I know, and no one from any
Internet consumer rights organization like the Consumer Project on
Technology, nor anyone else representing the interests of the non-commercial
end-users of the Internet.
You do not represent my interests. The ORSC does not represent the interests
of the stakeholder group - very large, in fact - of which I am a part. No
one else invited to that meeting does either. I am unrepresented there. It
is a closed meeting, as far as I'm concerned. An unfair process. Just as it
would be for you, if you were not represented. Are you incapable of
understanding this, or are you just pretending to be obtuse?
> I don't believe that anything is going on here,
What you may or may not believe does not, in the end, matter very much to
me. What matters to me is protecting my interests, just like you and
everyone else.
> but asking questions like this is required to
> keep the process honest.
What questions are you referring to? I haven't seen that you or the ORSC has
asked any questions. Unless you're referring to those posed by Ellen Rony,
who I don't believe was responding to any request from the ORSC. Correct me
if I'm wrong.
> So, once again, I suggest that we give the
> meeting organizers a chance to describe their
> event. If there are problems with their process,
> we should be prepared to help them fix it. If
> their process is sound, then let's have a great
> meeting and get this DNSO off the ground.
This is the worst sort of supercilious hypocrisy I have heard from you yet,
Jay Fenello. The meeting organizers have already proven their
untrustworthiness, by lying about the process in their public posting and by
inviting only selected people and organizations to the first day of talks.
You are going to "fix" nothing. And a process that starts out with
deceptions and exclusions is unsound, as far as I'm concerned, by
definition. But maybe your definitions have changed.