[9519] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Advisory Committee reporting
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (The future Ross Stapleton-Gray)
Fri Jan 7 12:33:16 1994
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 1994 10:32:38 -0700 (MST)
From: The future Ross Stapleton-Gray <STAPLETON@bpa.arizona.edu>
To: com-priv@psi.com
James Love <love@essential.org> says:
> Ross, you have raised this issue before, according to scott Armstrong,
> of ways that federal agencies can get around FOIA. Is there really any
> reason why a federal advisory board that wants to make decisions that
> will influence our telecommunications policy should not use a system that
> is subject to FOIA? What could possible be discussed that should not be
> part of the public record?
For the record, I'm no advocate of federal agencies "getting around FOIA;"
I may have discussed it at the IITF conference where I met Scott, but I
come down on the other side of that argument. Perhaps from a FOIA
standpoint it would be best for the AC materials to be on a federal host;
my main concern would be for AC members to feel as uninhibited as possible
in their discussions, however, and that's unlikely to happen if it's *all*
done "al fresco." I imagine TAP, which is fairly forthcoming with its
position statements, and eager to explain its disagreements with other
groups, has animated internal discussions all the time secure in the
knowledge that heated debate between colleagues won't be splashed all over
the media as indications of an organization at war with itself.
And I want the participants to feel free to say stupid things among
themselves, knowing that as they iterate amongst themselves, and as they do
communicate with the rest of us, they'll learn.
The best thing would likely be a plan for the AC to provide healthy
feedback, e.g., a commitment that they'd put out a weekly report that would
detail not only what they agreed on, but what they disagreed on, and how
strong the sentiments were.
Ross
