Hi David, Here is a posting about open lists, due process, and the public good. FYI & FWIW. Jay.

Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 00:31:54 -0400 To: Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com> Subject: Re: PAB Opens Mailing List Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, pab@gtld-mou.org, gtld-discuss@gtld-mou.org

At 10:24 PM 5/23/98 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:

...

On Sun, May 24, 1998 at 12:38:32AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:

...

...

...

Apparently the PAB now has an readable archive of their mailing list. Only the recent entries are included.

The PAB voted to open the list archive as of Jan 1. This is relatively old news --

This might be old news to you, but it certainly is new news to me. More importantly, making a list archive readable is not the same thing as making a mailing list open.

One of the reason's that the Internet community desires open and transparent processes is so that all sides in a controversy may have an equal opportunity to state their position. In other words, you are more likely to hear opposing points of view on an *open* list.

Indeed. That is why gtld-discuss exists. The PAB list is for PAB to conduct its business, and is the means by which PAB votes.

I fail to see why one precludes the other . . .

I am reminded of the history of C-SPAN. C-SPAN began cablecasting the U.S. House of Representatives on March 19, 1979. The Senate, however, resisted broadcasting their proceedings for over seven years.

As I remember it, the Senators were concerned that it would impact their abilities to do what Senators do if the people they *represented* could see them doing it :-)

To make a long story short, on June 2, 1986 the Senate finally allowed their proceedings to be televised. No major disruptions occurred, and in fact, many suggest that we now have better government because of it.

What concerns me about your statement is the implication that because business and voting occur on a list, people who are interested in its proceedings should be excluded. And just like the Senators quickly realized, I believe these restrictions are unfounded.

With the pending release of the White Paper, we will hopefully have some answers to the following questions on Internet governance: - who will have authority for what. - what legal jurisdiction(s) will be used to resolve conflicts. - what coordinated functions will be managed for the public good.

IMHO, those functions that are being managed for the public good *MUST* have open processes. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction.

Over the last couple of days, we have seen some of the organizations that currently manage Internet resources take actions to quiet dissenting voices on their lists.

While there may be occassions where this is warranted, I do object to the lack of due process that was used. Without a set of list standards <like http://www.open-rsc.org/lists/rules/>, any actions taken against any individual may be considered arbitrary and biased, and potentially unfair.

In closing, if PAB really wants to evolve to become the Policy Advisory Board to the new Name Council (if that should come to pass), I suggest that it become more inclusive with a more open list.

Given the technical skills available in this community, there is no reason why we can't use Internet techonology to provide for a free and open flow of information. Let's work together to make *Internet* governance the *best* governance the world has ever known.

Regards,

Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com