Two papers released this week focus on the apparent failure of public participation in ICANN's decision-making. Since they are related to each other but reach different conclusions, their conflict is highly illuminating.
On 8 December, John Palfrey, executive director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, released "The End of the Experiment: How ICANN's Foray into Global Internet Democracy Failed." This 61-page PDF file can be downloaded here.
A day later, Andrew McLaughlin responded to an earlier version of Palfrey's paper, with "The Virtues of Deliberative Policymaking: A Response to 'Public Participation in ICANN'". McLaughlin's anger can be felt even in his introduction: "[Palfrey's] study's value is diminished by two rather fundamental shortcomings: (1) its misapprehension of both the theory and the practice of ICANN's policy-development process, and (2) the sizeable gap between the broad scope of the study's conclusions and the very narrow -- indeed, myopic -- focus of the analysis from which they are derived. Simply put, the study scrutinizes a small and misleading corner of ICANN (namely, its online public comment forums) and leaps to a sweeping (and, in my view, unwarranted) conclusion."
McLaughlin was ICANN's Vice President, Chief Policy Officer, and Chief Financial Officer during 1999-2002. That doesn't make him a blind supporter so much as someone familiar with ICANN's inner workings.