more on FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Esther Dyson <edyson () edventure com>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 17:00:05 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>, Ip <ip () v2 listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings

Dave -

I have mixed reactions to this, based on my experiences with ICANN (and I
have mixed feelings about expressing them openly!!).  If people were
perfect, all-open meeting would be a good rule, but we wouldn't need
it.  What is more likely to happen with all-open meetings, as opposed to
public open meetings plus the possibility of closed ones, is that all the
underhandedness goes completely underground.  Openness is good, but it's an
impossible standard. You want to see horse trading in public, but there's
just no way to avoid private discussions and I think it's better to
acknowledge them than try to hide them.

I support most disclosure requirements, but sometimes you just need to talk
in private.  The first rule is to pick people who are fundamentally honest
.... if we only could.

For the record, I believe in open board meetings (having closed board
meetings initially was one of ICANN's biggest mistakes), but there was some
truth to what Hans Kraaijenbrink once said (I'm paraphrasing) at a press
conference to announce our new open board meetings: "Of course we just make
all the decisions at dinner the night before."  Would outlawing the dinners
help?

Of course not.  people would have found ways around it. But the open board
meetings themselves, though we adopted them too late, did improve
things.  They  dispelled some of the secrecy ...and over time people began
to speak more frankly in public.

But I do think there's a balance, and prohibiting all private contact
between more than two people makes it difficult to get things done, reach
compromises....and to follow the rules.   (Actually, it's the two-person
meetings that are the worst, in government and in business, because people
say things one-on-one that they can always deny later.....)

I just think the real problems lie elsewhere - including meetings not among
commissioners, but with outside interested parties....
Transparency is much more than holding open meetings and publishing
inscrutable documents. It means listening, explaining your reasoning,
documenting why decisions were made and what interests were considered, and
more. It's a pity you can't force it into being with a few rules.  It needs
a vigilant press, disinterested and forthright public servants, and people
such as you willing to spend their own time and effort making sure people
stay honest.

I'd like to say: If we don't trust these people (commissioners), why are
they there in the first place? but that raises a whole *other* set of
questions.

At 02:35 PM 2/15/2005, David Farber wrote:
> Life is toough in an open givernment. Much easier if descisions are made in
> a closed enviroment. I think it would be first the FCC , then ... END OF
> OPEN GOVERNMENT
>
> Dave
>
> ------ Forwarded Message
> From: Frank Muto <info () ISPNETWORKS ORG>
> Reply-To: Telecom Regulation & the Internet
> <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:58:42 -0500
> To: <CYBERTELECOM-L () LISTSERV AOL COM>
> Subject: FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings
>
> February 10, 2005
>
> FCC Commissioners Ask For Private Meetings
>
> Chairman Powell, commissioner Copps say open-government rules hinder their
> ability to work together.
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress should enact changes to open government laws to
> make it easier for political appointees on the Federal Communications
> Commission to discuss issues in private, two FCC members said.
> FCC Chairman Michael Powell, a Republican, and fellow Commissioner Michael
> Copps, a Democrat, said the law hinders communication between individuals on
> the five-member FCC because only two members at a time can talk face-to-face
> outside the confines of a commission meeting.
>
> Powell and Copps, in a letter to Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted
> Stevens, R-Alaska, said they supported the goal of open government laws, but
> added that Congress should change the law to let more than two commissioners
> meet privately ``in appropriate circumstances.''
>
> Otherwise, commissioners must communicate via their staffers, or through
> letters and e-mails.
>
> ``These indirect methods of communicating clearly do not foster frank, open
> discussion, and they are less efficient than in-person interchange among
> three or more commissioners would be,'' Powell and Copps wrote in the letter
> last week to Stevens and released publicly Wednesday.
>
> Stevens could not be reached immediately for comment. Newspaper groups and
> free speech advocates bristled at the request and said it would lead to less
> transparency.
>
> ``It's basically arguing that it is inconvenient for them to have open
> meetings,'' said Steve Sidlo, managing editor of the Dayton (Ohio) Daily
> News, and chair of the First Amendment Committee for the Associated Press
> Managing Editors Association.
>
> ``If you are going to have a transparent government that's accountable for
> decision-making, that allows people to understand why decisions are made,
> then you have to have open meetings,'' Sidlo said.
>
> The open government law requires deliberations be public when ``the least
> number of individual agency members required to take action'' are meeting.
>
> On the five-member FCC, three votes are needed to conduct official business.
> Therefore, any meeting of three commissioners, whether by chance or on
> purpose, must be open to the public.
>
> Powell, who is leaving the FCC next month, and Copps said it was an
> appropriate time to address the issue because Congress is expected to tackle
> a host of telecommunications issues this year, including how to regulate
> Internet phone calls and digital television rules.
>
> Safeguards could be added to the law to ensure a private meeting of three
> commissioners would not ``jeopardize the goal of open government,'' they
> said.
>
> ``Commission decisions are in some cases less well informed and well
> explained than they would be if we each had the benefit of the others'
> expertise and perspective,'' they wrote.
>
> The purpose of the open government law is to avoid ``back-room deals and
> mischief'' among public officials, said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief
> executive officer of the Media Access Project, a Washington, D.C.-based
> public interest law firm.
>
> ``It is inconvenient to operate in the public eye, but it is a good thing,''
> Sidlo said. ``Inconvenience isn't a good reason.'
>
>
>
> Frank Muto
> President/Ceo
> FSM Marketing Group, Inc.
> Co-founder -  Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
> www.wbia.us
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as edyson () edventure com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>   http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/



Esther Dyson              Always make new mistakes!
Editor, Release 1.0

CNET Networks - www.cnet.com
104 Fifth Avenue (at 16th Street)
New York, NY 10011    USA

+1 (212) 924-8800

www.release1-0.com
PC FORUM: http://www.edventure.com/pcforum/
FLIGHT SCHOOL: http://www.edventure.com/pcforum/flight.cfm
current status (with pictures!) at http://www.flickr.com/photos/edyson/





------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/