Susan Crawford posted an anonymous comment that makes some powerful and controversial statements in the post "Time for Reformation of ...   more »

in my comments to the ICANN board yesterday I noted that Roberto Gaetano and I first met at the original CORE meetings in '97/'98.

I was struck by the number of people who I first met back then that are still well involved in the process. They include the following:

- Roberto Gaetano (ICANN board member)
- Hal Lubsen (CEO, Afilias)
- Ken Stubbs (GNSO council)
- Amadeu Abril i Abril (former board member, former gnso member, self-admitted ICANN groupie)
- Antony Van Couvering (founder NetNames, traveled to Tuvalu with me in '98 in the early .tv fiasco)
- Bob Connely (registrar emiritus)
- John Kane (now with enom)
- Richard Lindsay (formerly of GMO)
- Nigel Roberts (Jersey ccTLD)
- Jonathan Robinson (NetBenefit)
- Tom Barrett (encirca and .pw)
- Dave Crocker (brandenburg)
- Kent Crispin (songbird)

I am sure I am missing others. Who else was there that is still involved?

let's see. ombudsman, check. progress in the IANA function, check. hearty new gtld discussion, check. a strong contribution from nomcom in manning key ICANN posts, check (especially the addition of joi!). peaceful relations between ICANN and Verisign? well, four out of five isn't bad.

I saw more clear signs of progress at this meeting then I have at any other in all the years I have been attending these things. frank fowlie looks really promising as the new ombudsman. doug barton, ex-yahoo dns geek, appears to be making real progress with the IANA function. these two things have been constant laments from ICANN critics.

the contribution of the nominating committee is especially interesting. I had originally thought of the nominating committee as a bridge to eventual direct elections. now I am not so sure. if the nominating committee keeps stocking the pool with strong candidates that appear to be quite likely to well represent the interests of internet users, not business, not policy and not governments, then the need for direct elections may be obviated.

bret, susan what do you think?