OK, you picked a single element of section 7 while there are six (actually I wanted to exclude the one you picked, but I assumed you would comment on the impact of the other five). Here is section 7 in point form: A- transparent and accountable budgeting processes B- fact-based policy development C- cross-community deliberations D- responsive consultation procedures Note: A-B-C-D to provide detailed explanations of the basis for decisions, including how comments have influenced the development of policy consideration E- an annual report that sets out ICANN's progress against ICANN's bylaws, responsibilities, and strategic and operating plans F- a thorough and reasoned explanation of decisions taken, the rationale thereof and the sources of data and information on which ICANN relied My hope for ICANN management improvements is that the review teams in clause 9 will review the decision making process according to A-B-C-D-F separately from the substantive outcome. As far as I can tell, in a state of law, when an appeal body reviews a decision, it reviews jurisdiction, decision-making process, rules compliance, analysis, and (usually to a lesser extent) factual evidence collection. Section 7 A-B-C-D-F gives the review teams a starting point for decision-making process review. They would err if they don't use it. I am the only one who reads it that way? The community, stakeholders, and interested parties may use the section 7 as the ICANN processes charter clause, plead it to the greatest extent, and give no excuse for ICANN to remain as incompetent wrt decision-making as it has been so far. With due respect for other opinions, notably I claim no special expertise in governance.