11 November, 2010

Does the ICANN Board actually read any public comments?

In comments submitted to ICANN's Reconsideration Committee, the .Jobs Charter Compliance Coalition states:

"Just as the summary and analysis of the public comments (the “Comments Summary”) failed to acknowledge either the nature or the source of objections to the Program, the Board Materials either ignored or dismissed the concerns and rights of third parties who would be affected by the .JOBS expansion. Finally, the Minutes unquestionably demonstrate the ICANN Staffs’ failure to look behind Employ Media’s unsupported assertions about the Program, despite the serious deficiencies identified by members of the Coalition and others..."

... a polite way of saying: 
  1. the ICANN Board didn't bother to read the Public Comments
  2. the Board relied on a lousy Staff summary
  3. the Board Materials were horribly deficient
  4. not even a modicum of due diligence was performed
If we have gotten to the point where we can longer trust the ICANN Board to actually read comments submitted by the public (presumably because board members are so overloaded with hundreds of pages of other reading materials), then maybe it's time to re-think the process.

Here's a suggestion:  Eliminate the untrustworthy Staff summaries and have a Board Committee prepare these summaries for the balance of the Board -- at least that way we'll know that at a minimum one Board member is actually reading the public comments.

No comments:

Post a Comment