So, can I suggest approaching this piecemeal: The paper's entire thesis is that ICANN is avoiding accountability. Why then is there no mention beyond a footnote (no.23) of the 18-month Improving Institutional Confidence consultation that the IGP both blogged and officially commented on? And why no mention beyond the footnote of the two very specific bylaw amendments put out to public comment that came from that process, aimed specifically at improved accountability? You can find links to all the relevant aspects of this consultation on my blog post: http://kierenmccarthy.com/2009/12/12/igp-warns-of-icann-participation-conspiracy/ Kieren