Reports and comments after ICANN’s Bucharest meeting start coming in. For instance, Jamie Love sent out a statement which paints the meeting’s outcome from his unique perspective. Quite frankly, I don’t see much point in complaining that ICANN is even going so far as to remove the ability of the public to [...] have votes in public forums that have no legal power. Why vote when it’s pointless and meaningless (the sentence alludes to the E&R committee’s recommendations on the GA) anyway? If you read the entire message, it looks like the author is entirely frustrated with the reform process and looks for ways to change ICANN from the outside. On the other hand, Izumi Aizu has sent an interesting message to the atlarge-discuss list. He writes: I think the At-Large Advisory Committee idea is not in anyway the best or idea [...] It is a difficult situation and difficult judgment. I hope those who stand with the principle of direct representation and participation will not simply deny the other approach who still think direct representation and participation is the goal. The difference to me is not the goal, but how to reach there.
“Mainstream” net media are also taking up the ICANN topic: For instance, the San Jose Mercury News has taken up some criticism from European ccTLDs; a Reuters Story is covering the reform decisions. Monika Ermert has this story (in German) at Heise, including some remarks from board member Andy Müller-Maguhn on the reform process.
In order to stay up to date on the “press coverage”, you may wish to do an occasional Google News search.