On Oct 5, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Bill, I see it differently.  The corporate staff is only part of ICANN.  ICANN is all of us volunteer community + professional staff.  That is one of the things that makes a difference.  If we surrender ICANN to just the corporatists, it will become just another big business and then we truly will be able to do very little to affect it.


To me this mixes two different issues.  One can be part of the process in order to have the effect you want without needing to believe that I am it and it is me and we are all the eggmen.  I see no problem with saying I'm part of the ICANN community but not the ICANN organization.  People who are the organization include those who get paid, are direct participants in and beneficiaries of its decision making, are part of the inside circles etc.  They know the difference between who's who and map the boundary lines in all kinds of ways, including most recently in Vilnius.  So the fact that they did something we happen to agree with, without any sort of consultation one might expect if indeed we were it, doesn't to me mean that we have spoken.  And there is anyway much more to be said.

On Oct 5, 2010, at 2:22 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> I wasn't saying we should avoid saying anything.  I think we should be
> harshly critical (butt-kickingly so, even), and that the statement
> should come from "individual members of NCSG and ALAC" (and others)
> rather than from NCSG and ALAC as ICANN institutions.

Yes but why?  Because we have spoken (without know it)?  Or because Rod speaks for us?  I'm just not getting the premise….

Thanks,

BD