At 18:34 21/11/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
or am I missing some particular nuance?
yes. ICANN's strategy is the "Internet for the Rich". Civil Rights are all right, but ICANN does favor them over "Civil Defense". What is the use to fight for the right to use the way you want something you are first prevented to access? All I know, is that ICANN purposely prevents us to have the Internet we should have. With "IPv6 to IPv6" peer to peer for everyone, support of the Virtual Root, no-spam, full multilingual support, multicast, efficient multihoming, simpler and more secure routing, cheaper network nodes, etc. These things have nothing to do with RFCs and technology. They have to do with the way ICANN does not catalyse them through their names and numbers misgovernance. Would it be to favor some of its "stakeholders"? Dont ask me, but you may want to read their (and ISOC's) Form 990. Now, you may also consider that replacing ICANN in governing the Internet better is in the direct technical reach of the sole @larges, that is of ALAC, or of ATLARGE - but not of the sole GNSO. jfc