Dear Marco, The At-Large staff has the honour to transmit to you the Statement of the ALAC to the Public Consultations on the Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes, and Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee. The attached document was drafted by the At-Large staff with contents as requested by the At-Large Executive Committee, as a reply to the public consultation ³Proposals for the Systematization of Organisational Reviews² to be found at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#review-processes. The last paragraph was drafted by the Staff as requested by the Chair of ALAC on 3rd August 2009 in order to allow the Statement to apply equally to the consultation that followed that above-referenced, to be found at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#review-cycles. The Chair of the ALAC then requested the Staff to open a vote on the document beginning on 3rd August and closing on 9th August. The result of the vote was announced on 11th August by the Staff, said result being that the Statement was endorsed by a vote of 11-0-0. The result may be verified under the following URL: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=PhiLvkcf4Vsfz68SMyLL As this is a formal Statement of an Advisory Committee to the Board, we provide it by copy hereby to the Secretary of ICANN for distribution to the Board with our compliments. The ALAC welcomes any comments the Board may wish to make by reply. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org Statement of the ALAC to the Public Consultations on Proposals for Systematization of Organizational Review Processes, and Bylaw Amendment Related to Organisational Review Cycles Whilst the ALAC has not been able to review these proposals in depth due to the volume of public consultations currently underway, we wish to make the following points. The entire current structure of independent reviews should be rethought, as it is increasingly clear that having multiple reviews conducted and implemented independently of one another is multiplying the complexity of the entire process, and does not sufficiently take into account the growing interdependencies between the different component parts of ICANN. Accordingly, is our view that the Bylaw amendment proposed is not the right approach. It simply continues the present paradigm when what is needed is a more fundamental rethink.