>I think we have to go even further and think about a way the 5 geographical different regions are represented on an equal basis.
Yes. By electing board members from each region, as was done last election, we have an opportunity to ensure this.
>Developing countries have other concerns. In a long term it is absolut essential to involve developing countries to ensure a healthy broad accepted development.
So-called "universal access" is the goal. Believe it or not, we have similar issues here in the US. There are many people without the means -- financially, educationally or both -- to access the Internet. The idea is to make Internet access available to everyone, regardless of means, through public "walk-up" terminals, etc. This isn't exactly an issue within ICANN's scope at this time, but such issues drive decisions on how networks are configured and, more importantly, which domains are employed to support such activities, and there clearly *are* within ICANN's mandate, so they must be addressed.
>For the BoD it is too much to have 9 @large directors - you all agree that this is because they want to have more power themselves, are we going to take them serious?
Yes. More to the point, it is important that the @Large community (that's anyone reading in this forum!) use the glaring spotlight of public opinion to convince them to level the playing field
>Are we going to listen to them or are we going to challenge them, claiming that only business >issues are strongly protected.
will challenge. While corporate interests have no less right to have input about the evolution of the Internet, they have no more right to do so than the common citizen.
>What do you think are the developing countries going to do as soon as more people get Internet >access? (Businesses want them to be in the new market as soon as possible.)
It depends on how forward-thinking they are when they implement it. For instance, in a country where even standard phone access is spotty, due to cost or geographic barriers, wireless and satellite solutions could be cheaper and easier than laying lots of copper wire all over!
>I propose that there is a percental distribution of @ large members - this would mean, and this is >the negative thing about it, that developing countries could not be represented by each >Individual interested in it.
I don't see the need for representatives necessarily. Each citizen of the world that wishes to register with @Large should be able to do so, and have a vote come election time.
>Another way to ensure that developing countries get the same right would be to give those >voting members more weight.
I don't know that I would go that far. I've always been a firm believer in "one person, one vote."