The following comments are adapted from a recent discussion thread on the NCSG/NCUC discussion forum. __________ To the Accountability and Transparency Review Team: It seems important to address the distinction between formal policy-making processes and informal policy-making dynamics at ICANN. This came up in the context of evaluating the processes of the WHOIS Review Team and how its final results feed into policy-making ultimately by the Board. The suggestion was made that the combination of RT consensus building and general public comments may provide a meaningful channel for stakeholders "at large" to shape the policy development process. This is true only to the extent that the Board accepts the public input as given (and thus, only to the extent that the public input is viewed as genuinely representative, and not systematically skewed). Given the ongoing uncertainties of public outreach, it seems possible (bureaucratically) for the Board to declare that public input is not representative, and to estimate the "real" mix of public sentiment, and replace the public record with this alternative assessment. Conversely, the public record may *not* be representative, but if it serves the Board's purposes it may accept it as such. I think you can expect spin doctoring on both sides of disputed issues when the public record accumulates, with those that are supported by it proclaiming how accurate it is, and with those that are undermined by it proclaiming how inaccurate it is. In such cases where consensus is difficult to reach, the validity of public input will regularly and systematically be called into question. And, one wonders what informal (and perhaps hidden) influence ICANN staff has on the Board, as well. ICANN staff may not be accountable formally to any stakeholders, yet they may have informal preferences for some stakeholders over others (even personal conflicts of interest), and those preferences could influence policy-making without structural constraint or oversight. It is important to create some sort of formal definition of standards of effective decision-making in the overall formal process. When informal influences are left open and importantly influence the final decision, the ultimate result is effectively ad hoc decision-making, with formal processes acting as mere window dressing rather than meaningful policy drivers. This can give the (inaccurate, and even disingenuous) *impression* of "the rule of law" where in fact "the rule of humans" is more importantly at play. This does the public interest a grave disservice. So I would encourage those addressing these issues to go beyond the explicit, formal structures and also seriously and honestly evaluate the implicit, informal dynamics that influence policy-making at ICANN, as deeply and thoroughly as possible. Dan Krimm Member, NCSG/NCUC Past participant, WHOIS Working Group, 2007 -- Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.