August 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

August 08 ICANN Policy Update now online
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

As not everyone on this list may be currently subscribed to the monthly ICANN Policy Update Newsletter, please note the August update is now available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/policy/update-aug08.htm CLO

2 1

ALAC-Stmt-on-GNSO-Final.pdf
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Dear Mr. Jeffrey, Please find attached the recently endorsed (12/08/08) ALAC Statement regarding the outcomes of the recent GNSO Improvements, Council Restructuring Working Group report provided by that committee at the end of July and considered by the Board at its last meeting. This document embodies the ALAC representative and Sub-Committee Report that was appended to that working groups report and includes new sections which outline several additional key points, opinion and issues that the ALAC wishes to be considered by the Board at their August meeting. Yours sincerely, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2008-09

1 0

Re: [ALAC] travel policy
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 14, 2008

Aug. 14, 2008

Hong, I'm sorry if my mentioning you by name was taken in any way to reflect negatively on you. And it certainly is not a reflection on your excellent work on IDNs. Unfortunately, you are the only regular Liaison that we have to a potentially unfunded group who is not already funded (this year anyway) by ICANN. Robert and Carlos would probably not get funding as their Liaison positions to the SSAC and NCUC are not mandated by the By-Laws. But they are already ALAC members. Liaisons to GNSO and ccNSO are By-Law mandates, and if not held by ALAC members, are funded under the new rules (perhaps not 100% of course). So it was the only way I could think of to illustrate the case. In prior years, ICANN has funded travel for positions such as yours, but the new proposal does not seem to. Again, sorry if it was not clear what I was trying to say. Alan At 13/08/2008 08:44 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >With respect to this newly released document, I don't understand why >I'm singled out for this policy analysis. Is it a negative comment on >my work or for any other reasonable?

1 0

Re: [ALAC] travel policy
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2008

Aug. 13, 2008

As I read it, partially correct. See comments below. At 13/08/2008 03:06 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >Colleagues... > >I have some questions on this -- apologies I have not kept on top of >it, due to recent personal circumstances. This document seems vague >about the at-large travel budget itself. Here's what I get from >these documents referenced in the below news alert: > >1. The supporting organizations want and are going to get some >additional ICANN funds for travel. So are nomcom appointed people. Correct. In fact, even the ASO which according to the document does not WANT any will get it . Presumably, if they decline, the rest of us cannot spent their money. >2. Chairs and such get some more flexibility and discretion with how >travel funding is spent. I think the chair discretion disappeared from the current version, replaced by each group having to decide on what rules/procedures will be applied to them. Chairs are allowed to travel business class (presumably only if flight is over 5 hours), but the rules adopted by the organization may or may not fund the chair (for air and or per diem). >3. Because of the expense of the forthcoming at-large summit, the >at-large will be considered after the summit to be "matured," and this means: >-- limited to no travel funds for those outside the ALAC, i.e., >people in ALSs, RALOs, etc. (?) >-- limited to no travel funds for the 18-odd people on the ALAC itself (?) As I read it, for the coming year, ALAC is fully funded (to the extent that we are now. There is no mention of any funding for RALO/ALS people (also no mention in summarizing the current state, so it will not be perceived as a cut by others). I presume we could voluntarily take less funding for the committee and spread it around to others. Post July 2009, if the same rules apply as for other orgs (as implied, although this document is less specific on the time-frame), we would get 50% of the needed money for the 10 RALO-selected Committee members. Just as the GNSO could use money for non-Councillors (ie working group members), we could do the same for RALO/ALS people. The status of Liaison to other groups is unclear. If they are a full-fledged ALAC member, they will be subject to the ALAC rules. If not, they *may* be eligible to funding based on the rules of the organization they are liaising to. Liaison to unfunded organizations (such as Hong for ID issues) are presumably not funded unless we take some of our money to support her. Ditto for liaison TO our committee. Or at least, that is how I read the document just distributed. If staff have a different interpretation, It would be nice to hear. It would specifically be nice to know very soon who is being funded for Cairo. Alan >Is this correct? > > >-----Original Message----- >From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] >Sent: Wed 8/13/2008 2:35 PM >To: Brendler, Beau >Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel >Support Procedure for FY09 > >ICANN News Alert >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13aug08-en.htm >________________________________ > >ICANN Posts Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 >13 August 2008 > >The work to create a community travel support procedure began with a >specific call for travel support in late 2007 by some in the >community (though this issue has been discussed for some time). >There has been extensive consultation on community travel support. >It began as a workshop in Delhi, with comments received and an >analysis posted. Further, a draft was posted in June, discussed in >budget meetings in Paris, and again with fairly extensive comment in >person, via email and on the web. These second round of comments >were summarized and analyzed. This last summary is available at: > >http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html > >The revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09 >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08.htm >document strives to accommodate the community feedback. Of course, >this is a subject about which complete agreement is not possible. >However, there is strong agreement within the community that a >procedure exist that is documented, transparent, consistent, >adhered-to, and reviewed/revised for efficacy. > >Comparing the final procedure with the draft discussed in Paris, >some key changes include: > >* Guarantees travel support for NomCom-nominated counselors >* Stresses transparency in application and post-meeting reporting >* Allows for some flexibility in the allocation mechanism within a >SO without overburdening the Chair > >The document strives to be complete without being overly-detailed. >This will leave many specific questions unanswered. ICANN staff will >develop and post a FAQ (frequently asked questions document) to >capture questions, and provide consistent answers to the entire >community. If you have questions, please send them to the ICANN >staff member with whom you work most closely, or send them to >travel-support(a)icann.org. > >Staff will collect feedback on issues that arise in the first >implementation of this procedure, now through the Cairo meeting, and >Staff will make clarifications, as needed. Additionally, Staff will >conduct a complete review of the Community Travel Support Procedure >at year end with a public consultation at the June ICANN meeting, >and this will be an opportunity for RSSAC to provide additional >input if desired. >________________________________ > >Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine http://www.icann.org/magazine/ > > >This message was sent by: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > >Powered by iContact: http://freetrial.icontact.com > >Manage your subscription: >http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=10248929&l=6333&s=96FD&m=16… > > > > >*** >Scanned > > >**************************************************************************** >******** >SCANNED > >**************************************************************************** >******** >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 13, 2008

Aug. 13, 2008

You may well be right regarding Internet policy issues in general. But there will certainly be internal communications for administrative issues, or ongoing work on a statement being formulated or discussed that is targeted to a specific RALO). And we need to remember that if a subscriber is flooded with mail that has no direct relevance to them, they may well just get off the list. So targeting is important. Alan At 07/08/2008 03:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Based on our mandate, I cannot think of any issue important to ALAC that >would have a specificity of interest to just one RALO. > >This is not to say that every issue will resonate the same for every >ALS.......or even RALO! > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 PM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication > >The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >RALO management and ICANN staff. > >The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO people. > >The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. > >Somehow we need to rationalize this. > >Some questions that come to mind are: >- Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >- Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >comment when appropriate. >- Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >that are relevant to that RALO only? > >Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? > >Alan > >PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >without cross-posting. > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

4 4

Re: [ALAC] FW: Mailing list duplication
by Jacqueline A. Morris Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

Personally, I think that ALAC and RALOs should be required to subscribe to the working lists - that is the ALAC one where only they can post, and which should be used for substantive policy discussion, as well as the regional lists (for regional ppl, like Chair, Secretariat, Board etc) and the announce list (should be required for all ALSes as well) and that should be it. The wild west open discussion list can be monitored by one or two people, in case something of import is raised by someone outside the RALOS or the ALAC, as this is the only place for them to post, but it should not be obligatory as the volume is massive and there are many discussions which do not interest everyone. I like the GA list participation idea for the At Large list.. Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote: > I'm concerned about this concept of participation. My "participation" is > driven by my interests. And quite frankly, not all issues gathered on these > lists have the same value or impact for me. > > IMHO, all "addressees" may participate as they deem fit. For any blanket > 'participation' requirement for what is a voluntary chore would be > misplaced. That would be like work. And if it is work, it ought to, of > right, attract a fee. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:15 PM > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication > > The phrase "and with ALAC" is interesting, and one of the things we > need to discuss. > > Are all ALAC members (or the somewhat larger group, all ALAC members > and RALO management) obliged to monitor all communications on the > At-Large list? If one presumes that this is the way for individuals > with no explicit standing to raise issues with us, the answer is yes. > But clearly at the moment, some do not even subscribe, and others do > not have the stamina or time to go through it all. > > In the case of the GNSO and GA list, it is clearly stated that some > Council members participate, but they are under no obligation to > participate or respond. > > Alan > > At 11/08/2008 12:16 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >> ALAC - list for ALAC to do work in public. >> At Large - list for all people interested in At Large issues to talk >> amongst themselves and with ALAC >> That's my take on it... >> Jacqueline >> Thompson, Darlene wrote: >> >>> Well, and now after my last e-mail, I'm disagreeing with myself. We >>> have ALAC Announce for announcements. So what is the difference between >>> ALAC and At-Large? No idea whatsoever. Dang! >>> >>> D >>> >>> Darlene A. Thompson >>> Community Access Program Administrator >>> Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>> P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>> Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>> Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>> Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>> E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >>> Greenberg >>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:46 PM >>> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >>> >>> You may well be right regarding Internet policy issues in general. >>> But there will certainly be internal communications for >>> administrative issues, or ongoing work on a statement being >>> formulated or discussed that is targeted to a specific RALO). >>> >>> And we need to remember that if a subscriber is flooded with mail >>> that has no direct relevance to them, they may well just get off >>> the list. So targeting is important. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> At 07/08/2008 03:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Based on our mandate, I cannot think of any issue important to ALAC >>>> >>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>> would have a specificity of interest to just one RALO. >>>> >>>> This is not to say that every issue will resonate the same for every >>>> ALS.......or even RALO! >>>> >>>> Carlton >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >>>> >>>> >>> Greenberg >>> >>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 PM >>>> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >>>> >>>> The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >>>> RALO management and ICANN staff. >>>> >>>> The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >>>> moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO >>>> >>>> >>> people. >>> >>> >>>> The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. >>>> >>>> Somehow we need to rationalize this. >>>> >>>> Some questions that come to mind are: >>>> - Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >>>> - Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >>>> comment when appropriate. >>>> - Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >>>> that are relevant to that RALO only? >>>> >>>> Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >>>> reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >>>> of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >>>> on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >>>> without cross-posting. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ALAC mailing list >>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>>> >>>> >>> n.org >>> >>> >>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >>> .org >>> >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o >>> > rg > >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>> >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

FW: Mailing list duplication
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

I'm concerned about this concept of participation. My "participation" is driven by my interests. And quite frankly, not all issues gathered on these lists have the same value or impact for me. IMHO, all "addressees" may participate as they deem fit. For any blanket 'participation' requirement for what is a voluntary chore would be misplaced. That would be like work. And if it is work, it ought to, of right, attract a fee. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 12:15 PM To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication The phrase "and with ALAC" is interesting, and one of the things we need to discuss. Are all ALAC members (or the somewhat larger group, all ALAC members and RALO management) obliged to monitor all communications on the At-Large list? If one presumes that this is the way for individuals with no explicit standing to raise issues with us, the answer is yes. But clearly at the moment, some do not even subscribe, and others do not have the stamina or time to go through it all. In the case of the GNSO and GA list, it is clearly stated that some Council members participate, but they are under no obligation to participate or respond. Alan At 11/08/2008 12:16 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >ALAC - list for ALAC to do work in public. >At Large - list for all people interested in At Large issues to talk >amongst themselves and with ALAC >That's my take on it... >Jacqueline >Thompson, Darlene wrote: >>Well, and now after my last e-mail, I'm disagreeing with myself. We >>have ALAC Announce for announcements. So what is the difference between >>ALAC and At-Large? No idea whatsoever. Dang! >> >>D >> >>Darlene A. Thompson >>Community Access Program Administrator >>Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >>P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >>Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >>Phone: (867) 975-5631 >>Fax: (867) 975-5610 >>E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >>Greenberg >>Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:46 PM >>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >> >>You may well be right regarding Internet policy issues in general. >>But there will certainly be internal communications for >>administrative issues, or ongoing work on a statement being >>formulated or discussed that is targeted to a specific RALO). >> >>And we need to remember that if a subscriber is flooded with mail >>that has no direct relevance to them, they may well just get off >>the list. So targeting is important. >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2008 03:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >> >>>Based on our mandate, I cannot think of any issue important to ALAC >>> >>that >> >>>would have a specificity of interest to just one RALO. >>> >>>This is not to say that every issue will resonate the same for every >>>ALS.......or even RALO! >>> >>>Carlton >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >>> >>Greenberg >> >>>Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 PM >>>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >>> >>>The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >>>RALO management and ICANN staff. >>> >>>The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >>>moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO >>> >>people. >> >>>The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. >>> >>>Somehow we need to rationalize this. >>> >>>Some questions that come to mind are: >>>- Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >>>- Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >>>comment when appropriate. >>>- Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >>>that are relevant to that RALO only? >>> >>>Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >>>reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >>>of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >>>on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >>>without cross-posting. >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>> >>n.org >> >>>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >>.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o rg >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Board Liaison July/August report
by Annette Muehlberg Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

Totally agree. Third-party beneficiary status would be very helpfull for the individual users. best Annette ...> As for upcoming issues, I would recommend that ALAC review the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement and its amendments. ... -- shouldn't we make another > plug for third-party beneficiary status for the affected public? > > --Wendy >

1 0

Board Liaison July/August report
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

Preliminary minutes from the July 31 Board Meeting are posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31jul08.htm> As you can see, the Board discussed the GNSO Restructuring and was interested in how it would accommodate new interests. The Board has asked staff for analysis on implementation issues. I raised our concern about the inclusion of "individuals," not limited to "registrants" or existing constituencies. Further At-Large perspective would be welcome in this continuing discussion. You will note further that implementation of new gTLD processes moves forward, with little further opportunity for comments. As for upcoming issues, I would recommend that ALAC review the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and its amendments. As registrars are one of the most individual-facing parts of the ICANN web, and the ICANN contract the uniform requirements they must follow, we should at least be making recommendations (even if they are likely to be ignored, again) as to how these contracts could better serve the interests of individual Internet users. When even the Department of Commerce is concerned about ICANN's lack of contractual enforcement -- shouldn't we make another plug for third-party beneficiary status for the affected public? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

ALAC Meeting: GNSO restructuring
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

I have added two items for our meeting regarding the GNSO restructuring proposal. It should have been done a while ago, but both Cheryl and I have been rather overloaded. My apologies for this. The first item is the augmenting and ratification of the ALAC statement appended to the working group report. It reporduces the already published statemen and makes two additional comments: a. Our disappointment at the negative comments made about the ALAC (and NomCom) members of the working group by some of the constituencies. b. Comments on the new non-commercial stakeholders group partly in response to the belief by some existing constituencies that no more constituencies should be created. For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the draft ALAC statement. The second agenda item is directly in reply to questions raised by the Board regarding the new structure. Some have already been addressed by the above statement, but some are new. Alan

1 0