At 19:31 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote:

...

At 08:49 09/08/2008, Bill Silverstein wrote:

...

Many of his recent comments have been relevant to the internet community, but not to the issues of ICANN.

Would you mean there would be a difference ?

jfc

I would say yes. The purpose and function of ICANN is the operation of the Name and number service of the internet (ie. DNS, registry, registrar, etc.)

For example, on censorship: The greatfirewall of chine: No., Free speech in Iran, no. A registrar canceling the domain name: bushsucks.com w/o notice ,Yes.

Bill, I obviously agree with you. My jest was to underline that @larges are not dedicated to ICANN, but ICANN is dedicated to @larges as the Internet Community front runners (lead users, common consumers reps). @larges come first. Everything of concern to @larges should raise a question at ICANN: "Is ICANN in a situation to help?". @larges are the ICANN lead customers. This is why they were to initially be 50% of its BoD. The US industrial dominance has changed the bylaws, but cannot change the reality of life. If one way or another we cannot restore that - at least in the way de BoD listen to us, I am afraid it will be finished with ICANN except as golden TLD syndicate. This is at least the way I and many others read the NTIA. It seems very difficult, from the very beginning, to protect ICANN interests against their will. The recent "Internet for the Rich" strategy IMHO calls for a very quick review with our help and endorsement, _if_ they want to remain credible to Govs and Civil Society. jfc