Re: [ga] Board Meeting on .biz, .info, .org contracts advanced by one week

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Re:  "There were many comments received from the public
comment period, and they need to be sorted through."
 
During the prior discussions on the proposed .com agreement ICANN staff provided (1) a Summary of Comments Regarding the Proposed .com Agreement (2) an Analysis of Public Comment.
 
On this occasion, the ICANN Staff has provided neither for public scrutiny prior to initial Board deliberations.  This raises several issues:
 
Transparency -- have such documents been prepared for the Board but not for public consumption?  If so, how may we be assured that positions have not been misrepresented?  Many will recall this quote from the earlier "analysis":  "Regarding registrants, there was some expression that there might be
some negative effects due to the potential price increases, but, the majority across
constituencies expressed that the increase in cost was negligible when compared to the
value of a domain name registration."  
 
Management -- If no such documents have been prepared, then at issue are the performance expectations set for ICANN employees.
 
Ultimately, we must ask ourselves "Why does there continue to be such a disconnect between the positions negotiated by ICANN's staff and the point of view of the general public as expressed in numerous public comment periods?  Why does ICANN Staff get it wrong so often?  Have we arrived at a point where what is in ICANN's best interest no longer equates with the public's best interest?