Dear All, ICT seems to induce a ‘head-in-sand’ syndrome i.e. pronounced tendency to turn a Nelson's eye on technical concerns. "Blaming Technology" is ruled out. The executive prefers making Technology an elephant. A "collective" position on technology within the executive is often times [virtually] non-existent to arrive at swift decisions effecting the people at-large. Do so many people at-large need "swift" decisions? is another question. The description "the hood ornaments of public participation" is understandable. An useful exercise for me to share: AS 8015-2005: Australian Standard for Corporate Governance of Information and Communication Technology is a technical standard developed by Standards Australia Committee IT-030 and published in January 2005. The standard was the first "to describe governance of IT without resorting to descriptions of management systems and processes.". This 12-page standard features the following six principles. 1. Clearly delineate responsibilities for ICT. 2. Carefully plan ICT to best support the organization. 3. Ensure the acquisition of ICT is valid. 4. Ensure implemented ICT performs as expected, if not better, when needed. 5. Verify that ICT conforms to a set of formal rules. 6. Ensure ICT respects human factors. In my humble opinion, this is more of managerial guidelines rather than a "technical" standard specification. Suggestion: Evolving principles of technology governance in a multi-stakeholder context without resorting to descriptions of management systems and processes may improve transparency. Your thoughts... Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli PS: I have taken the liberty of changing the subject line for this mail thread. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 19 November 2022 01:45 To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Are Blockchain Domains within the Mission of ICANN - WAS RE: Questions to the board about distributed DNS Evan, I don't want to add to the specifics of the .ORG/ICANN event, but I believe At-Large should remain vigilant against unaccountable and untransparent policy processes. I was on a zoom call this week where Roger McNamee used the phrase "the hood ornaments of public participation". He was referring to organizations like IETF, W3C, etc, not ICANN specifically, but if not careful, ICANN At-Large can turn into a "hood ornament of public participation". It's a valid concern. Cheers, David <EDIT>