I understand all of that and if we want to change what I've suggested from an independent board to an accelerated prosecution by the government of companies with high scores, that's fine. I'm inclined to trust the right board of directors more than our courts, but that's just me. I have a feeling Wikileaks's fate is better off being determined by our citizens than by our government. That's why I proposed keeping the organization independent. But really, my only goal is to have a transparent method of keeping tabs on the infractions of companies, so that each violation perpetrated on small rights holders without the resources to sue can add up and have consequences. The current problem is that all a company needs to do is make deals with the companies large enough to sue, and then abuse those too small to do so, and they can avoid the penalty of the current laws. What I've proposed allows for the overall behavior of a company to be transparent and acted upon. If it needs to be acted upon by our government, then that's okay, but I suspect that puts real free speech havens at risk.