- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [IDN-WG] [ALAC-Internal] Draft Statement on IDN Fast Track Proposal v3
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

Hello, While incorporating comments in the draft comment statement, in the context of "ALAC raises the following comments with a view to contribute to the process of evolving the Plan further as a complete Plan so as to ensure that IDN TLDs are smoothly implemented globally without technical or policy related implementation issues and seamlessly integrated in the domain name system. At the same time ALAC empathizes that all that needs to be examined needs to be examined expeditiously as expressed in the opinion within that 'Fast-track IDN ccTLDs must be implemented as planned, i.e. in Q4 of 2009 as the latest, to meet the "pressing need" of non-ASCII user community", I have added the following statement contextually. "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter-constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave way for implementation." The statement with changes is at page https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. Apart from non-substantive, structural changes in the process of merging comments with the original draft comment statement, the above addition related to focused inter-constituency meetings on IDN TLDs at the next ICANN meeting is an important addition that DID NOT form part of the draft comment while it was open for alac comments during the last 7 days. Added contextually to reconcile the need for urgency and the necessity for the required further work. I hope this is permissible post comment period, and be accepted as part of the statement to vote. Thank you. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Hello CLO, > > I have incorporate the comments and prepared a more concise comment as the > ALAC comment on the 3rd revision of the Draft Implementation Plan for IDN > ccTLDs. This is at page > https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy. > > By a copy of this message to staff I am requesting that this may please be > copied to the alac docs page and anywhere else as may be required or emailed > to initiate the voting process. > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > > > > On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:36 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < > isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mathias, >> >> Thanks. >> >> Will work on this today. And send you a revision incorporating comments in >> a few hours. >> >> >> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >> >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Matthias Langenegger < >> matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >>> Hi Siva, >>> >>> According to the At-Large Policy Development schedule, the final draft of >>> the At-Large Comment on the Draft Implementation Plan for IDN ccTLD Fast >>> Track Process Revision 3 is due today. Did you receive a response to your >>> Email from Wednesday and did you have a chance to revise the Draft >>> Statement? As soon as we receive the final Draft Statement from you we will >>> start the ALAC vote on the document. >>> >>> Kind Regards, >>> >>> Matthias Langenegger >>> At-Large Coordination Officer >>> Internet Association for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> Phone: +41 79 644 65 35 >>> Skype: matthiaslangenegger >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ >>> idn-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sivasubramanian >>> Muthusamy [isolatedn(a)gmail.com] >>> Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 6:21 AM >>> To: ALAC Internal List >>> Cc: Bart Boswinkel; Tina Dam; idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [IDN-WG] [ALAC-Internal] Draft Statement on IDN Fast Track >>> Proposal v3 >>> >>> Hello CLO >>> >>> The revised draft incorporating comments is due tomorrow (9th July) and >>> the >>> statement has to go to alac vote tomorrow. Apart from incorporating >>> comments, should any of the nine points need to be DELETED ? >>> >>> Please advise. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> Blog: http://isocmadras.blogspot.com >>> >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy < >>> isolatedn(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Hello Tina >>> > >>> > The points raised in point 7,8,9 in the ALAC draft comment in >>> reference to >>> > the absence of links to documents etc. are general, minor observations, >>> and >>> > to be taken as a suggestion for maintaining the completeness of the >>> draft >>> > implementation report. It was NOT implied that this is a serious >>> omission, >>> > nor implied that there was any reason for any intent. >>> > >>> > The draft comments may please NOT be seen as directed to IDN staff, and >>> > certainly there was no misunderstanding about staff / working groups >>> that >>> > would have compiled the third revison of the plan on which the draft >>> > comments were prepared. >>> > >>> > Thank you >>> > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >>> > IDN liaision. >>> > >>> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < >>> > nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> > >>> >> Dear IDN Working Group and ALAC members: >>> >> >>> >> Tina Dan at ICANN had a look at the draft statement, and thought I >>> should >>> >> advise you of the following, which she thinks may be a >>> misunderstanding: >>> >> >>> >> In 7-8-9, where it appears the ALAC is understanding the Module 7 >>> revision >>> >> to be that there are no outstanding issues. In fact all outstanding >>> issues >>> >> related to financial considerations, relationship between ICANN and >>> manager, >>> >> and variant management are still outstanding, hence the supporting >>> papers. >>> >> We simply provided supporting papers as opposed to keeping these long >>> >> discussions in Module 7. >>> >> It is correct that we did not add link to the supporting papers in the >>> >> Draft Implementation Plan. This was difficult to do because of the >>> posting >>> >> deadlines and instead we posted all papers together at: >>> >> http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-31may09-en.htm >>> >> I hope this is of use to you. Of course if you have any questions >>> related >>> >> to the above, I'm sure Tina would be happy to help. >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Regards, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >>> >> >>> >> Director for At-Large >>> >> >>> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >>> >> >>> >> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >>> >> >>> >> USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 >>> >> >>> >> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >>> >> >>> >> Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >>> >> >>> >> email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org >>> >> >>> >> Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / >>> Skype: >>> >> nashtonhart >>> >> >>> >> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> ALAC-Internal mailing list >>> >> ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >> >>> >> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… >>> >> >>> >> ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >>> >> At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> IDN-WG mailing list >>> IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… >>> >>> IDN WG Wiki: >>> https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?at_large_idn_policy >>> >> >> >

3 5

ALAC and ALAC Liaison Position Description
by Alan Greenberg July 28, 2009

July 28, 2009

As discussed at our meeting in Sydney, work is progressing on setting up policies to ensure active participation of ALAC members. There were two decisions that came out of that meeting (according to my notes): 1. We need a comprehensive Position Description before we can work on the policy on how to enforce it. 2. We should continue work on this as a committee-of-the-whole (that is, the entire ALAC). At the request of the Chair, ICANN staff were asked to draft an initial Position Description (PD). It was reviewed at the last ExCom meeting (following some extensive discussion on this and other lists). Three changes were made: 1. A change was made to ensure that the PD was aligned with the recommendations of the ALAC Review Report as accepted by the ICANN Board. 2. A section on recommendation to the Nominating Committee was removed as it contained errors in fact, and because recommendations to the NomCom, although very important, do not belong in the PD. 3. Sections were numbered to make it easier to comment on particular parts. The revised PD can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/index.cgi?draft_alac_pd. Please review this document and add comments at the bottom (I have already added my initial comments there). To make sure that everyone is commenting on the same document, PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE PD ITSELF, even if you have editing rights. If you agree with someone else's comments, please say so. If you disagree with any of the original text or someone else's comments, please also say so. Periodically, I or staff will merge the comments into the document to make it easier to read. Please note that this document is just the PD, not the policy on how we will try to enforce it. That policy is needed, but let's not confuse the two. This document may be and should be shared within your RALOs (hopefully we will soon have translations that will facilitate this). If there are comments from within the RALOs, it would be useful to know to what extent they are supported by RALO leadership and the regional ALAC members. Alan

1 0

Draft statement on registrant rights responsibilities
by Evan Leibovitch July 24, 2009

July 24, 2009

Prepared by staff at the request of a joint ALAC/GNSO effort https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?draft_summary_of_registrant_righ… Remember, this is simply a list of what already exists, not of what additional we might want to be there. - Evan

1 0

registrar issues (from /.)
by Gareth Shearman July 22, 2009

July 22, 2009

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/07/22/2023247/Registrars-Still-Ignoring-I… Gareth Shearman

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the IIC - The Way Forward
by ICANN AtLarge Staff July 19, 2009

July 19, 2009

Dear All, As per Sébastien Bachollet's request please find attached the Draft ALAC Statement on the document entitled "Improving Institutional Confidence - The Way Forward" which was published by the President's Strategy Committee on May 31st. This Draft Statement should have sent to you on July 1st but Sébastien was on holidays during the last couple of days and experienced problems when he tried to access his files remotely. A revised version of the Draft Statement incorporating all comments received on the attached version by the members of the ALAC and the Working Group on the Future Structure of ICANN ill be posted in early August for full community feedback. Please comment on the current version by responding to this email. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by Alan Greenberg July 17, 2009

July 17, 2009

Two comments: At 14/07/2009 07:49 PM, carlos aguirre wrote: > >Another Question: Why EX Comm is currently >formed by Nom Comm appointees, and no by RALO >representatives?, Nom Comm appointees are better >user representatives than RALO representatives? I don`t think so. First, my understanding is that both Cheryl and Sébastien are elected by their RALOs and are not NomCom appointees. Second, all four officers positions were filled by candidates who were not opposed - two from RALOs, two from NomCom. And if they had been opposed, whoever was elected would have been selected by the majority of voters, as democracy dictates. NomCom appointees are not de facto better user representatives than RALO representatives, but perhaps not de facto worse either. At 14/07/2009 08:19 PM, Andres Piazza wrote: >About the last part, I don´t think that anyone could disagree with, for >example, ALAN´s words. But this is not an easy matter to raise. Firstly, >because some of the analysis are made in quantity matters, but not with a >complete vision. I share many of the comments but be carefull, who is who to >be jugdamental to the performance of other ALAC Members? > >Specially RALO Leaders! Are we in a position to say something so strongly >about ALAC Members from our region? The whole RALO elected them, not just >ourselves. And also, they or some other person could also come with some >criticism with the role of one of us, RALO leaders. And they could use many >different criteria to analyze that (for example: "What are RALO Leaders from >that region that hardly can encourage 1 or 2 ALS rep to be involved in >remote participation during the meeting?. I put this example because FOR ME, >in LACRALO, a lot of work is done in private emails, chats, calls, with >members from the region to encourage, answer doubts, and etc etc, more that >to be in some particular WG providing what is just my personal opinion). I >could continue the whole night providing examples, but is not the sense. > >I´m not saying that this "performance discussion" shouldn´t be raised, but >just to be careful and not to put this as an argument against other idea >that has been displayed. I guess we may have a different vision here. In my mind, RALO leaders are elected by their ALSs to take responsibility for their RALO. That is what leadership is all about. I agree that this is potentially a very difficult job. It is not easy to formally assess performance in cases such as this, and particularly when the person being assessed is a colleague. But that is the job that RALO leaders have been given, and they must use all of their skills to try to understand how effective their ALAC representatives are. And they will no doubt have to talk to other ALAC members to try to make this assessment. It is important (in my mind) to differentiate between someone who is working effectively within the RALO, and someone who is working well within the ALAC. You can have one without the other (in both directions). So should we be careful in both setting up the rules and then carrying them out? Most certainly! But ignoring the responsibility should not be one of the options. Alan

8 12

Call for Agenda Items for 30 July 2009 Board Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Please note the July 20 deadline for items for the Board agenda. Let me know if there are things ALAC would like to recommend for the agenda. The Board resolved in Sydney that the item of ALAC Board members be moved there, and it's likely that IRT will be on the agenda. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Diane Schroeder writes: The next Board meeting is scheduled for 30 July 2009 at 19:00 UTC. The agenda and materials will be distributed 7 days before the meeting. If you have any items that you would like to be included on the agenda please send them to me by 20:00 UTC on Monday 20 July 2009. Items submitted will be considered by the Chairman, in discussion with the Vice Chair and CEO, at their agenda setting call before the meeting. Items that are completed, and ready for board action such as written Committee recommendations are likely to be given higher priority than unwritten materials. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org 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

Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by At-Large Staff July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Dear Excom: We've taken the liberty of including a number of items for your agenda tomorrow, though of course it is a draft agenda until you adopt it. You'll recall mention of these items previously and that the Staff were asked to produce drafts in relation to items 3 and 4 at your meeting at the end of the Sydney meeting. The agenda may be reviewed at https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?15_july_2009. ---- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

8 9

Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by carlos aguirre July 15, 2009

July 15, 2009

Dear Alan. As I said, when talking with you, in Sidney. In relation with performance guidelines, I believe is neccesary to make a new rule (maybe a rule 21 bis) where we say the less as possible, because everybody knows what are his/her obligations. and make a new rule with a clear process. I insist with my work presented in Paris, and perhaps a previous step of dialogue with the "member in fault" .- Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:24:01 -0400 > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > From: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July > > The issue of performance guidelines, which based on discussions prior > to and in Sydney led to the clear need for a Job Description, all > falls on my plate. > > Knowing that I would be rather busy with other matters for a few > weeks after Sydney, and that Cheryl would be out of commission for a > while, we asked staff to do the first draft of a job description. You > alluded to the last performance paper that crashed and burnt - I most > definitely did not want that to happen to this new document, so it > seemed wise for someone other than staff to look at it before opening > full comments. THAT is why it was on the agenda. How would you have > done it differently? > > I really would like someone to define "get rid of the ExCom". Does > that mean you don't want Vice-Chairs. Or don't want them working with > and talking to the Chair. Do you want the Chair to have sole > responsibility for Chair matters, rather than talking things through > with a representative of each region. Or do you want all of that to > happen, but just not have the title ExCom. What is it you really > want. No buzzwords - please be clear and succinct. > > Alan > > At 14/07/2009 03:22 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > >Wow! > > > >Yes, I have to agree with this and I can certainly understand your > >exasperation, Alan. I *do* care about ALAC and At-Large. So, what can > >I do to change things? I'm not on the ALAC so am rather looking in from > >the outside. > > > >However, as soon as the whole ExComm thing came up, there was > >substantial push-back on it that seemed to me to be ignored. > > > >Please, if ALAC people think that they "deserve" travel funding, then > >they also should be "required" to participate. I can say this as being > >from the only region that has required our ALAC reps to perform and has > >cleaned house at least once. > > > >We need to strengthen those job descriptions (as Evan mentioned) to also > >have an "or else" clause. Also, yes, we definitely need to see those > >performance indicators at regular intervals (not just for ALAC but also > >for the Chairs and Secretariats). However, the numbers often just don't > >show what Alan is mentioning. If any ALAC member asks for input and > >comments and is only responded to by the same people, that is more of a > >judgment call (not shown in the numbers) but this somehow needs to be > >reported back to the regions (I'm not sure how). There was talk around > >ALAC to incorporate various performance indicators back in Cairo but for > >reasons that I will keep off-list, it crashed and burned. We need to go > >back to this, strengthen our ALAC, get rid of the chaff that is not > >performing and get rid of the ExComm. > > > >I hate the thought of the Chairs and Secretariats being the ex-officio > >"police" for this sort of thing but the regions really do need to weigh > >in here as well as the ALAC itself. Again, I'm not sure how this should > >be done but something needs to change. > > > >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: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:39 PM > >To: ALAC Working List > >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July > > > >At 14/07/2009 01:21 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: > > > > >This whole ExComm thing needs to be put out of its misery. If a group > > >of 15 cannot make timely decisions, then the whole structure of ALAC > > >needs to be reconsidered. (as scary as that is) > > > >Every time I post something asking for input and comments, I > >typically get one or two comments. From the rest of the committee, > >silence. And mostly from those members who comprise the evil ExCom > >(Adam being the one exception). > > > >If those who really care about ALAC and At-large were serious, there > >would be more action to get ALAC members to actually participate and > >not just criticize. > > > >Alan > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 _________________________________________________________________ Probá los mejores juegos online en MSN http://juegos.ar.msn.com/

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July
by Thompson, Darlene July 14, 2009

July 14, 2009

OK, I just took the time to read a couple of the documents that will be discussed at the next ExComm meeting and have the following comments and encourage others to weigh in here (and READ some of the documents!). 1. It was never my intention to "put down" those individual members of the ExComm. What we have in the ExComm is a truly motivated bunch of people that keeps everything going with ALAC. Were they to disappear from the face of the earth, ALAC would be non-functional. 2. The Position Description for ALAC Members and ALAC Liaisons states, under Time Commitment and Working Practice, that minimum participation includes (among other things): * Participate actively in policy issues and other working groups. Each ALAC member is expected to help lead at least one working group composed of members of At-Large working on policy issues. A current listing of working group and the remit of each may be found at http://st.icann.org/working-groups. * Reading and commenting in At-Large's mailing lists and other communications media. The participation in WGs includes: Additionally, each ALAC member leads, co-leads, or participates in one or more working groups on policy issues, which will involve an additional average 10 hours per month in reading documents, drafting proposed responses, and attending teleconferences and participating in email and other electronic correspondence related to those working groups. OK, so in addition to having parameters set on numbers of meetings attended and votes acted on, we also have the above. Could the performance metrics that we get from staff not also include: - How many policy statements have each ALAC member drafted or participated in drafting? - Haw many WGs have they chaired or have given substantive input into? - Attendance at face to face meetings Frankly, I, too, have witnessed the trends of: - In Sydney, some ALAC members that swanned in late to meetings, missed ALAC meetings and left early. During the rest of the sessions, these ones were completely missing and did not attend. Great Facebook pages on what they ACTUALLY did there, though! - ALAC members who we NEVER hear from between the face to face meetings. They don't bring any kind of policy work to the table and hardly any comments on list (and WGs??? - never) 3. Unfortunately, the regions don't see this lack of effort at the face to face meetings and may not be tuned into the other things that I have brought up. These NEED to be included in performance indicators. 4. Check out the voting procedures for the new Board Liaison. I heavily support the new means that are being suggested to actively bring in the RALOs into this decision rather than leaving it all up to ALAC. Hey, people, our ALAC reps are supposed to be bringing forward the opinions of the RALOs and, as some are not, this is the way we have direct influence. 5. In Cairo, Cheryl really tried to address some of these issues but got slammed from someone from North America who is no longer with us. I would like that whole thing dusted off and implemented. So, while I am totally against this whole ExComm thing, perhaps we need to really do some serious spring cleaning so that we can ENABLE a strong ALAC. Just my two cents (after about two hours of reading). 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: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 1:39 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft Agenda for ALAC ExCom meeting of 15th July At 14/07/2009 01:21 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >This whole ExComm thing needs to be put out of its misery. If a group >of 15 cannot make timely decisions, then the whole structure of ALAC >needs to be reconsidered. (as scary as that is) Every time I post something asking for input and comments, I typically get one or two comments. From the rest of the committee, silence. And mostly from those members who comprise the evil ExCom (Adam being the one exception). If those who really care about ALAC and At-large were serious, there would be more action to get ALAC members to actually participate and not just criticize. Alan _______________________________________________ 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

3 2