Just to confirm, this was actually sent to <[log in to unmask]> and also cc'd to this list. Dan On Tue, July 13, 2010 11:47 am, Dan Krimm wrote: > 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 > ef