I think you're being more than a little unfair here Brett.

What is on the ICANN site has none of the attributes of astroturfing at all. From Wikipedia: "Astroturfing is a neologism for formal public relations campaigns in politics and advertising that seek to create the impression of being spontaneous, grassroots behavior..."

You can only get to the letter page if you follow a link that says: "If you agree."

If you agree with what? Well, you can only find the "If you agree" link if you have already gone past a link urging you to read the ICANN submission, and a video of the CEO outlining his position.

If you agree, you click on a link and there is a letter. If you don't agree but click anyway, there is nothing whatsoever to induce someone to add their email address, select a box, click Submit, wait on an email, and confirm the contents a second time.

If this is astroturfing, then under your definition there can never be any such thing as a real grassroots campaign in which people simply add their support to something they agree with.

It should be noted as well that ICANN has been encouraging people to send in comments for months - in public meetings, online at the blog, the public participation site, and the main website, and in countless conversations with the community.

There is a link to the NTIA's Notice of Inquiry on the front page. People can send in whatever they like.

But, if you are on ICANN's website and you agree with ICANN's submission, here is a simple way of doing so.

That's not astroturfing.


Kieren

Okay, then to be fair, invite someone to write a letter supporting the opposite position and allow people to choose which letter they want sent.

How about that for fairness?

I'll take a different view on that one, Chris. I don't know that ICANN has any obligation to make it easier for people to criticize it or voice a dissenting view, it's more a matter of style to me than that they are channeling a particular point of view.

Bret

This is not any different than what INTA did with whois or Verisign did with the .COM agreement. How were those comments helpful?

Let's say that this campaign is a success and ICANN channels a few hundred "me too" emails to the NTIA. What does that say? How is it helpful to the NTIA that a few hundred people, out of the millions of Internet users, sent in a boilerplate email devoid of facts, analysis, or any independent thinking?

Bret

Now, intellectually, I'm with you Brett.

Statistically, in reality, this means very little. But a truism handed down for thousands of years is that decisions are made by those that turn up.

I am still struggling with ways in which many more people can get involved with ICANN's processes but it is an exceptionally difficult balancing act.

Do you let a very small number of very well-informed people making global policy decisions or do you allow large groups of people, with far less precise knowledge, the chance to decide policy.

The answer of course is somewhere in between - but how do you get to that middle position?


Kieren