Dharma, Please consider the following analogy. A state decides to build a new highway. The new highway will displace hundreds of citizens in the proposed path of the highway. Citizens become aware of the situation and many become angry. Preliminary Town Hall meetings are convened. Citizens vent their rage. Citizens form ad hoc Homeowner Association constituent groups. The Ad Hoc groups pay for impact studies and then offer up counter-proposals. Over the course of time, a few experts emerge from this community that understand the technical elements (highway grading concerns, watershed considerations, etc.). These few people wind up representing the impacted citizens in front of Planning Boards and the Highway Commissions. Ultimately a decision is reached regarding the highway. Some grumble and complain but eventually all accept whatever decision is reached. The ad hoc groups dissolve, the experts return to other duties, and life goes on until the State makes its next bad decision on some other topic. Rinse and repeat. When major issues arise (such as the RegisterFly debacle) users have demonstrated that they no difficulty finding their way to ICANN. All that is needed is: 1. A Town Hall opportunity so that concerns can be laid out. 2. A workspace within which ad-hoc coalitions can work to propose solutions 3. A few experts that can contribute regarding technical considerations 4. A clear process that outlines how a decision will be reached. There is no need to "grow or sustain interest on ICANN policies among internet users". Users will come forward when a situation warrants action. We have sufficient proof that this occurs. Our sole goal should be to ensure that modalities are in place to allow for impacted parties to have their say, and to be able to contribute to a solution-set if they are inclined to participate. best wishes, Danny