Ross Rader wrote:
ICANN isn't just an institution, it is us. We give it life and in most respects, we set the mandate. As of this moment we (ie, At-Large) don't even have a single vote at the board. Hard to see how we set the mandate.
I think if you have enough friends that agree that ICANN should do something, then I think the organization should be equipped to incorporate that.
You mean like the way the IP constituency has used ICANN to exceed conventional treaties in application of trademark restrictions? Or how politics trumped tech in the application for .XXX? Just because I can observe distasteful extensions of ICANN's mandate by other groups, does not mean I want to add to the problem in favour of my own pet agenda. If anything I'd like to reduce the existing level of politics and narrow the focus, not broaden it. - Evan