[NA-Discuss] New Access Codes for the NARALO Teleconference today

[Nick Ashton-Hart]

Since an objection to the meeting being closed has been registered  
(the request for a change didn't come from the chair - or me, if you  
are curious, but I will keep in confidence who it was unless that  
person wishes to speak up), we will continue with the existing code.

I hope everyone understands that I'm protecting the person who made  
the request out of respect for them, as they would undoubtedly  
receive a torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative nature and I  
think that facilitating that serves no purpose. If that means I get a  
torrent of inbound mail of a highly pejorative mail instead, so be it ;)

On 9 Jul 2007, at 08:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

> Hello Nick,
>
>> Due to the unfortunate email below-referenced and the possibility
>> that this may result in disruption of your teleconference today, I
>> have been asked to change the access code and send out individual
>> emails to the community with the new code.
>>
> Just out of curiosity, I'd like to know who made the request? As  
> much as
> I find Danny's contributions notable only for their pointlessness and
> intent to outrage, I don't consider them reason for us to close the
> meeting. We still have an real interest in transparency, and should
> resist the temptation to go private at the smallest hint of disquiet.
>
> We generally have good people, who are ready to move forward with real
> projects which I believe will increase useful public involvement in
> ICANN processes. I have confidence that our chair and other  
> participants
> have the skills and desire to hold a productive meeting.
>
> If it is determined by our chair that today's call is completely
> unmanagable because of individuals deliberately working to disrupt,
> alternative plans can be developed. In the meantime, IMO we should  
> work
> to keep processes as transparent and accessible as possible.
>
> Unless it was the NARALO chair who specifically requested the  
> change in
> access codes, I request that we revert to the status quo of an open
> meeting. While the confcall may indeed be subject of a hijack attempt,
> we have an obligation to make our best attempt at an open process.
>
> Just as I appreciated the ability to sit in (and even occasionally
> contrinute) at LACRALO and ALAC meetings in San Juan, I see no  
> reason to
> deliberately avoid an audience for our own efforts.
>
> Danny's email, while it represents a naive and contrary POV, is  
> not  in
> itself sufficient justification to run and hide. We should not let a
> committment to openness be so easily intimidated. I'm not.
>
> - Evan