Ok, so no response after four days as to why the IGP paper ignored the Improving Institutional Confidence consultation and the two specific accountability bylaws changes that resulted from it. So let's try another: Why does the IGP paper ignore the clearly outlined changes and impact caused by participation in the new gTLD process? The new gTLD process is the most significant project in ICANN's history and there are a series of specially commissioned papers that go through public comments made to that process, outlining the different perspectives expressed and giving the rationale for subsequent changes. Yet in a paper purporting to cover the issue of increased participation, in which the main conclusion is that such participation does not amount to accountability, how does the IGP explain the fact that it completely overlooked this direct and highly public impact of participation? Kieren McCarthy