Possibly the greatest example you will see of accountability and transparency failings

[Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have an excellent and timely case study for how the provision of
information regarding ICANN processes is so poor that it appears willful in
an effort to prevent proper review and feedback.


There is a new public comment period entitled: "Community Working Group
Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6"

There is an accompanying announcement: "Public Comment: Community Working
Group Report on Implementation of GNSO New gTLD Recommendation Number 6"
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-22sep10-en.htm


The announcement contains an enormous amount of redundant and rather
confusing information until you get to what is actually being discussed and
that is:

*"Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms relating to
morality and public order that are recognized under international principles
of law.*"

Even this is not clear. What is actually being discussed?

There are six links on the announcement - only one of which points to the
thing under discussion - a report.

No information is provided as to what that report contains, what its
conclusions are, what the impact of this report may be, and so on.

You are guided are to what input is being asked for, in what format, on
which particular aspects.



But what is being discussed has enormous import and impact.

It is a discussion about what Internet extensions are going to be banned.
Nothing could really be more important for ICANN to gather broad feedback
on. It is ICANN deciding on what it is going to allow the Internet to do.
And yet that fact is hidden beneath so many layers of information that it is
easy to draw the conclusion that ICANN is purposefully obscuring what the
public comment is actually about.

This is accountability and transparency writ large.




Kieren