ICANN by its function is a public governance body, if it is a private body by its form and incorporation that is just an anomaly. All the discussions/ activities regarding the transition process etc are basically aimed at addressing this anomaly, in the practical ways possible.
ICANN should therefore be subject to same level of transparency requirements as say the government of the US or of India is subject. Quoting 'standard commercial practices' cuts no ice. Government of India will not be able to give this response to a right to information query. ...

Parminder -

ICANN by its function is not a "public governance body” - it is actually a coordination

body that supports the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s various identifier

systems.

This does not in any way impinge on your main point: i.e. that ICANN should operate

under very high transparency requirements – only that it should do so because such

transparency was a basic tenet of its establishment and remains so to this day.

Thanks!

/John

p.s. my views alone (and perhaps that of the ICANN bylaws, to some extent…)