John Levine wrote:
Um, does that mean that if I get a bunch of my friends to caucus and decide that ICANN should address access to clean water, they have to do that, too?
Sorry to throw fuel on a dying fire, but I think the answer to the question has to be yes. ICANN isn't just an institution, it is us. We give it life and in most respects, 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. In other words, we set ICANN's original mandate and we should be involved in its evolution. I don't think that we'll ever get enough people to agree that ICANN's mandate includes ensuring access to clean water, but there might be a point in the future where we do get broad agreement around ICANN's role dealing with content and censorship issues. For the record, I'm not likely to be one of those people, but I thought it was worth pointing out the principle that we can change ICANN. /r