[discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013

Roland Perry roland at internetpolicyagency.com
Wed Dec 25 18:09:13 UTC 2013

In message <FA26DDB7-45BE-48D3-92E2-BB5A312394DC at gmail.com>, at 06:34:18 
on Wed, 25 Dec 2013, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio at gmail.com> writes
>> We have to accept that ITU working practices are what they are, just as I-star and others have working practices which aren't 100% open
>>either. I'm under the impression that for example regular ICANN board meetings aren't something I can turn up to as an observer, nor are all
>>the papers the board members are issued with available on the open web.
>Absolutely, transparency, accountability and access to information is still one of the big challenges in the ICANNsphere, but overall, agendas,
>minutes and BoD resolutions and reports are publicly available and many of the discussions (GAC not included) of all constituencies are
>publicly available.

I chose ICANN only because people will be more familiar with it.

>IETF working drafts, working groups email lists and documents, meeting transcripts and proceedings are ALL publicly available.

>> For the ITU IPv6 meetings I alluded to earlier (and to which the RIRs were invited to attend despite not, at the time, being Sector Members)
>>what follows is the same reply I gave to someone off-list yesterday, to inform about an earlier IPv6 Governance debate, rather than
>>demonstrate whether the documents were open or not, or indeed available or not (depending on how much effort is put into sourcing them):
>To be frank really irrelevant, the IPv6 Study Group you referred to and provided as a reference for the "IPv6 ITU issue" was closed in 2012
>after "completing" it's work, and if people want to know what was the outcome and final conclusions by reading the SG Chairman report, they
>can't since it's behind TIES access.

The meetings I mentioned were an illustration of a meme, and no less 
valid for having finished in 2012. I'm sure someone can dig out a copy 
of the final report for you, if you need it.

But my intention wasn't to discuss IPv6, or even the ITU vs IETF, but to 
shine a small light on the motives for starting new series of meetings.

Something which seemed appropriate because the fundamentals of this 
[1net etc] new series of meetings was being questioned.
Roland Perry

More information about the discuss mailing list