Hello Paul,
You cannot possibly mean that if the Board thinks it limits ICANN it is, by definition, not in the GPI -- or if you do mean that then the Board has a very, very inflated sense of itself and the relative importance of its mission.
You are mis-reading my statement I think. I am not talking about limiting ICANN (whether through diversity or transparency), and I am talking about impacts on the ability of ICANN to deliver on its mission - which is set out in the Articles of Association and the Bylaws. Diversity - actually improves the ability for ICANN to deliver on its role and is supported by the Board. Transparency - is also supported by the Board. We have not made any comments against transparency. We are wary of getting tied up in processes where we need 100 staff to answer requests for information that are not always material but serve the curiosity of the requester. That would meant that we would not be devoting as many resources to our core mission as we should be. It is about ensuring an affective balance. Any information that is necessary for the ICANN community to make decisions will be made available. Regards, Bruce Tonkin