You need to know that ICANN has a very narrow, rather geeky, mission.
I thought that ICANN's mission was what the Internet Community wants it to be.
Good lord, no. Please read Section 1 of the ICANN Bylaws, entitled MISSION, immediately. ICANN manages the DNS root, IP addresses, and port numbers. That's it. The only interesting part is the DNS root, since IP addresses are really managed by the RIRs, and port numbers are a technical wart. ICANN has a chronic problem with people engaged in wishful thinking who want it to be the giant something of the Internet, doing everything from stopping spam to bringing the 'net to the world's poor. Those are all fine goals, but they are most definitely not ICANN's job. ICANN has enough trouble doing the narrow job it is supposed to do without people trying to distract it with activities that are against its bylaws. For a good example of the mission creep problem, read the Canadian government's comments on the proposed .XXX agreement. It would put ICANN into the business of content regulation, which would both be politically bad news, and for which it has no expertise or qualification.
I also think people need to move beyond discouraging participation on the basis of a restricted mission.
I am astonished to see an ICANN staff member making such an ill-informed statement. ICANN's mission is what it is. If people care about the DNS and IP addresses, that's fine, they should participate. Anyone who signs up expecting it to be something else is wasting their time.
... an analysis published more than a year ago of GAC recommendations suggested that most of their recommendations were accepted. My sense is that the reason for this is partly that governments are governments, but also a recognition of the number of governments participating.
Don't be silly. It pays attention to governments because they are governments, who could make enormous trouble for ICANN if they were so inclined. ICANN may be chaotic, but it is not stupid. ICANN has a long and far from glorious history of marginalizing at-large participants since their first closed meeting in a hotel room at JFK airport. Danny Younger can chronicle this far better than I can. Anyone who wants to be part of at-large should be familiar with it, because it makes clear just how limited the role of at-large is and will be. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.