The Blueprint for ICANN Evolution and Reform talks about a 30-45 day cycle for Task Forces' policy-making. While some enthusiastically welcome this perspective, some doubts about the practical feasibility may be in order - with Task Forces going on extensive fact-finding expeditions, and with constituencies trying to micro-manage the process. So, how realistic is the evolution and reform committee's idea?

I do believe that it is realistic, under three conditions:

1. The problem must be well-posed, and well-understood. When you don't have a precise question to answer, specifying the question can be the hardest part of the job, and consume a horrible amount of time.

2. The facts must be on the table when the work starts. Task Forces have spent many months drafting, performing, and analyzing surveys, or doing other kinds of fact-finding. Frequently, this is a waste of time and ressources, and not even helpful for the policy-making's outcome: Those participating in policy-making don't necessarily have expertise in drafting and evaluating surveys. When they are doing the fact-finding themselves, there is always the temptation to twist the facts in a way which best supports the own position.

3. Constituencies must refrain from micro-managing the task forces: If a Task Force's work cycle goes like "telephone conference" - "two weeks of constituency deliberations" - "telephone conference taking into account constituency responses to discussions four weeks ago, but these responses only come in in the second half of the telephone conference, and we have to throw over the conclusions from the first half of the conference" - ..., then a short turn-around is virtually impossible.

Note that the last point somewhat mirrors this discussion about the role of the Names Council's members, and their possible responsibility for a "greater good".