Olivier: Within ICANN the notion of "capture" is repeatedly used by defenders of undemocratic selection methods. I must confess I have trouble understanding the argument. Are you saying that allowing a small group of already-selected insiders to select "representatives" does not pose any risk of capture? Are you saying that all forms of election must be dominated by "guerrilla tactics," "fake IDs" and fraud? If so, what are the implications for democracy in other contexts? Are you saying that the Parliament of France should be chosen not by voters but by a special group? Are you saying that the existence of systematic election fraud in Iran, for example, means that no country should ever attempt to have a valid, democratic election? If you are talking about the European At large seat in the 2000 elections, then the "militant group" you are talking about is obviously the Chaos Computer Club. And frankly, it seems to me that you are just complaining because your candidate lost and clearly did not have the widespread public support they did. If you are claiming that CCC won those elections by stealing it through fraudulent means, I think that is factually wrong (their candidate won by a large margin and there was no documentation of fraud in the European region), and even if it were correct the solution is to design better eligibility verification methods not to abolish elections. As far as I can tell, the idea of capture, when used in this way, means nothing but this: "people I like are already in control (i.e., capture already exists) and democratic methods would threaten that control, therefore we must not have any semblance of democracy.