3.6.2.2 Accountability and ICANN

Accountability can thus have multiple specific meanings, reflecting an array of devices to assure responsive governance. When critics claim ICANN is not accountable, they are actually concerned with a number of specific and distinct problems, each of which may be linked with the presence or absence of one or more of the mechanisms identified above. The accountability critiques of ICANN are widespread. They can be distilled around several broad claims that include:

Unresponsive behavior of board members and staff. This charge is in part linked with the invisibility and lack of access to the board members for constituencies affected by their decisions. It also refers to an absence of reporting and reasoning behind policy decisions and operating away from the areas of relative transparency.
Poor decision processes. This charge refers to the premise that decisions made by the ICANN board are narrowly focused, not deliberative, not responsive to the full range of affected constituencies, and often not based upon clearly identifiable reasoning (and consensus).
Illegitimacy, which is closely related to the first two. Within the context of ICANN, illegitimacy is not only fueled by exclusion of affected groups from decision-making processes but also by the very creation of a self governing entity, lacking real oversight, rather than a formal (governmental) institution.

3.6.2.1 Accountability Mechanisms

3.6.2.3 Towards enhanced accountability