TRANSPARENCY  

Wilson: Fundamentally important. ICANN must be able to function in an open manner. How to be extremely open and still function in a timely way?

Conrades: How to measure transparency? Bylaws could provide specific measures for, for example, publication of minutes and other transparency provisions.

Fitzsimmons: It will be possible to measure satisfaction with people and process. How to measure people's satisfaction with being heard? Trust model: trust a function of experience over time. Trust will not come quickly; once established, trust will also not fade quickly.

Kraaijenbrink: Looking with European eyes at US, the quest for transparency is to be commended. Transparency equals openness, clarity, etc. Board will have accomplished its task if, after a year, internet community is sad to see initial board go.

Crew: Evidence in this meeting of transparency and openness: People speak their minds, express doubts, etc., and this is accepted as the normal mode of operation for a meeting like this. Board wants to keep open mind, listen to other points of view. Process must allow people to become involved and observe what's going on.

Dyson: Example of Russia: closedness, secrecy, creates a fear to tell the truth. ICANN process must be two-way - listening and understanding in both directions. Openness is not simply posting minutes. Board's duty is not just to post minutes but also to explain the reasoning behind decisions, even if lawyers prefer otherwise. Better to point out issues/tensions rather than try to hide them.

Q: Why won't board make transparent the process of its selection?
Nesson: Sims already answered - Postel chose them.
Q: How to trust board when board can't answer questions?
Nesson: Trust them because they can't/won't answer yet.

Q: Fundamental accountability issue: How to assure that board will follow its own bylaws? Need authoritative texts, institutional mechanisms. How do those who believe that the bylaws have been violated bring their concerns forward? Need someone who is not the board to hear such complaints.
Nesson: Make proposal in writing.
Dyson: Can't make a promise for the board, but is aware of the need for some such process, perhaps a procedure for reconsideration. Board will be considering it.

Q: Suggestion that board votes on significant questions in the public record. Why not included in bylaws?
Crew: Personally opposes that all board votes be made public. Board's obligation is to represent total constituency - board governs a corporation, not a government.
Q: How are members supposed to know the views of individual board members if their votes are not publicly reported?

Q: Major trend on internet is commercialization. Within a year ICANN will have all the money it needs. Why not hire people to work for ICANN? Pay them salaries and buy their allegiance to ICANN. To depend on generosity and goodwill alone will result in conflicts of interest.
Dyson: Staff (Roberts) are paid, board members have their expenses paid.

Q: Board of directors is about governance. Duties other than making the greatest return. Internet has thrived without governance. Better to build an organization that will tend to gridlock rather than one which can be captured.

Q: Board could have made a fundamental decision re two-letter ccTLDs. What process used to make the decision? How did people vote? What process did you have before you? Will you reconsider?
Roberts: Board didn't change the status quo. Asked a question, answered it, said they'd sustain the status quo.

Q: How to make board accountable to internet community? Meeting minutes 21 days after the fact not acceptable, transcripts better, webcasting better still. Trust, but verify.
Dyson: Such policies have been considered, but do not contribute to effective decisionmaking.
Nesson: How comfortable is the Board acting in the open? Will Board make its email public? How fully does the Board drop the screen around its deliberations?

Kraaijenbrink: The Board has been transparent thus far. The Board has only adopted the bylaws so far, and the members stated the explanations for their decision. Webcasting elicits secretness. Decisionmaking cannot be done in the full public view. US government does not meet in public - at least the executive branch. European cabinet meetings are not made public - the results and the reasons behind the results are made public. You are asking for the Emperor to don new clothes. The working of the Board will be more transparent than it has been so far, but a number of discussions will not have to be public. No need to watch every word we say. Board is entitled to a measure of privacy - for personnel matters, for example, a measure of secrecy is needed.

Q: Must think seriously about the costs of some of the proposals that have been made. Webcasting, for example, might mean that the real decisions will move offline. Burden is on those proposing transparency mechanisms to justify them. No need for elaborate mechanisms that have never been tried before.

Q: Let membership attend meetings. Bylaws make it too easy for board to determine not to make any given matter public.

Q: Challenge is not transparency, rather opacity. Everything the board does will be examined in far more detail than any other non-profit ever before. Transparency reveals the ambiguity in the decision-making process…

Q: How to achieve universal access to communication for everyone in the world. The functions of this Board are government functions. The Board should step down and leave the US government to take on the task of scaling the administration of the Internet to include other governments of the world.

Q: This is not governance of the internet, not a board that will run everything forever. This room is not representative of the entire internet community. This board probably about as believable and neutral as we're going to get. Let's get things moving, not argue about little points.

Q: Too much distrust - US vs Europe vs Latin America. View ICANN as internet's IPO. Would like to buy stock in ICANN, but there's no business plan. Need goals, mission, staffing plan, legal exposure analysis.

Q: ICANN decisions should mirror Supreme Court: Discussions in private, but public gets to know what each board member thinks, dissenters get to comment also. Public can evaluate whether to retain or remove board members.

Q: Public needs to know why decisions made. Much of community not present today.

Q: Purposes of ICANN spelled out in articles, very narrow. This process ill-focused - has little to do with the narrow purposes specified in articles.

Q: ICANN will control a small segment of the internet which sounds to me like governance.

Q: Decisions to grow out of public discussion; not that the board makes decisions in private.

For additional information, please contact:  

Wendy Seltzer and Ben Edelman 
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School