Kent Crispin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>> How can you be sure of this? I can imagine that there are that many
>> applicants from the countries you cited that have sufficient understanding
>> of the issues ICANN is supposed to be concerned with.
> How can you say that with a straight face?
> I can be sure of this, because after N years of participating, it is
> clear that a substantial number of the active participants don't really
> understand the issues. Nor do they understand the history.
On the other hand, there may be quite a few people who have, for the
most part, sat on the sidelines reading the exchanges and selectively
commented, who have now decided to participate more formally.
> The fact is that the whole picture is extremely complicated and obscure.
Even so, ICANN is not requiring that its at-large members be experts in
IP law, DNS, etc.
I'm a bit concerned at your characterization of the applicants to
date as being the result of "populist politics." In a time (in the
US, at least), where we experience less than 50% voter turnout in
public elections, I find it refreshing that substantial numbers of
people have chosen to participate in the at-large membership. I've
always felt that the issues concerning ICANN needed to have broad
public exposure and opportunity for as many people as possible to
participate, provided that they *do* educate themselves on the
issues.
--gregbo
