- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [ALAC-Announce] ALAC Statement on Future Structure and Governance of ICANN
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 19, 2009

May 19, 2009

Dear Evan: To your second question, the answer's somewhat complex. The voting on the statement was setup specifically so that it would end on the 10th, in order to allow the statement to be sent in before the comment period closed. However, during the voting, Sebastien returned from holidays and raised questions about the statement's content, as he believed that it was to include an addition which he had written and tried to send in to the working group list immediately before he left for the Philippines. Unfortunately the statement didn't reach the list and therefore didn't arrive in the window during which comments were still being taken on the draft before voting began. As a result it was not clear to us precisely what to do. At the same time, we had transmitted the statement, and accompanying draft text of the email to accompany it, to the Excom list so that either one of the Excom, or ourselves on behalf of the ALAC, were to transmit the statement to the public comment period. An answer took a little time. What we (staff) should have done is simply send the statement in once the voting was concluded, copying the relevant lists and people, and asking for forgiveness afterwards as it were, due to the situation. For not ensuring this I apologise. At the same time, were we to have ensured Maria had a copy and knew what the situation was, that would have also helped greatly, though in this particular case the statement text had already been transmitted to the Board as a part of the At-Large Summit Declaration, so the contents had already been seen by the Board. Whilst it was very public that At-Large was going through the bottom-up, community-wide consultation on the text before the ALAC vote to ratify the statement, Maria has many things to read and would have certainly been helped by directly receiving something from us so that she knew what was coming and had the text to hand (apologies to you too Maria). I would not want anyone to think that I'm trying to shift any responsibility to Sebastien or anyone else - I most definitely am not - but I do want you all to understand the situation as a whole. I think that this sort of situation would be much less likely to occur if At-Large's policy advice development process didn't run up so close to deadlines but I would like to stress that I know this is often very difficult to avoid considering the bottom-up nature of deliberation in At-Large that takes place to the maximum extent possible, the geographic and linguistic diversity of participants, and the 30-day window in which many, though not all, comment periods run. In this vein it may interest you to know that Cheryl's asked me to prepare a draft Advisory for the ALAC and community to consider related to the structure of public consultations, drawn from the Thought Paper on the subject requested by Working Group 1 in the lead-up to the Summit. The referenced paper may be found here: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/summit-wg/attachments/wg1_documents:20… Evan Leibovitch wrote: > Hello everyone. > > ICANN staffer Maria Farrell recently wrote a letter to the ALAC announce > list, scolding At-Large for missing one of ICANN's typical too-tight > comment deadlines. > > In a moment of pique I wrote the response below. Before I send it in my > capacity as NARALO chair, I would like to receive feedback on both its > content and appropriateness. Personally I'm simply fed up with > complaints like this that we can't play the game as well as the vested > interests. > > And ... to At-Large staff ... are Maria and other ICANN staffers not > alterted in advance when ALAC statements are to be submitted past their > deadlines? I thought that was the case, > > > - Evan > > --------------- > > > > > > > > > Maria Farrell wrote: > >> In the future, I would be most grateful if you could follow the agreed procedure for submitting public comments to an ICANN consultation; i.e. posting them to the correct location within the time agreed. This is the only way to ensure equity between all contributors and allow us to complete the overall process in a timely manner. >> >> I understand that it can be a challenge for diverse groups to get comments agreed in time. However, other contributors with similar internal consensus-building processes to fulfill, including the GAC, various government authorities and trade associations, submit their input on time and/or appraise the relevant staff beforehand if there is going to be an issue. >> >> > > Hello Maria, > > Respectfully, if the above statement conveys your true sentiment then > you do not, indeed, understand At-Large. > > At-Large, by definition, does not include bodies with financial interest > in ICANN outcomes. It has no business models, national interests, or > property to protect. Its members primarily do not have English as their > first language, let alone the technical jargon that more often than not > pervades ICANN policy debate. They do, however, attempt to represent > more than 99% of the community affected by ICANN decisions. > > During my brief history within At-Large I have seen countless similar > misunderstandings of At-Large's most difficult role within ICANN. These > misunderstandings are manifested through unrealistic deadlines, and > other expectations that are based on the assumption that we can move as > quickly as governments and lobbyists with interests to protect. When was > that last time that At-Large was ever consulted in advance on whether a > deadline was reasonable? > > Some of these misunderstandings, arguably, are institutionalized deep > within ICANN. To a casual observer, the idea that ICANN's "public > participation" mechanism is distinct and separate from the component > that works with At-Large is astounding. > > If ICANN claims of public transparency and accountability are to be seen > as more than a facade, then perhaps it's time to better recognize -- > throughout the organization -- that the challanges of At-Large are both > different and substantially more complex than those of governments or > vested interests. > > Sincerely, > > Evan Leibovitch > Chair, NARALO > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 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

1 0

ICANN Board meeting May 21
by Wendy Seltzer May 17, 2009

May 17, 2009

The Board has received the agenda and materials for this next meeting: <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-21may09.htm> Board Meeting - Agenda 21-22 May 2009 Consent Agenda - For Action =========================== 1. Approval of Minutes - 23 April 2009 2. Approval of Charter of Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN's Present Geographic Regions 3. Approval of Structural Improvements Committee's Recommendation regarding the ccNSO Review Terms of Reference 4. Approval of Structural Improvements Committee's Recommendation regarding the ccNSO Review Working Group 5. Approval of the Finance Committee's Recommendation regarding International Currency Exchange Management Policy 6. Approval of the Czech Arbitration Court Pilot Project 7. Approval of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Agenda - For Action And/Or Discussion ===================================== 1. Approval of Phased Allocation Process for Single & Two-Character Domain Names in .BIZ, including proposed Contract Amendment 2. Approval of Phased Equitable Re-allocation Process for Non-Compliant Sunrise Names in dot-info, Including Proposed Contract Amendment 3. Approval of Location and Budget of Africa Meeting 2010 4. Approval of Recommendation of Structural Improvements Committee regarding Modification to Bylaws regarding Organization Reviews 5. Approval of Recommendation of Structural Improvements Committee regarding Systemization of Organizational Review Processes 6. Structural Improvements Committee Recommendations from Retreat - for discussion and possible action a. GNSO Improvements - Action on Proposed Stakeholder Group Charters b. At Large Seat c. Board Review Working Group Recommendations 7. Approval of Recommendations from Public Participation Committee regarding Meetings 8. Update on Improving Institutional Confidence 9. Update on planning for Sydney Meeting 10. Update on outcomes from Board Retreat including: a. DNSSEC b. IDNs c. Other new gTLDs 11. Other Business 12. Board Executive Session Information Papers - No Action Required - No Discussion Necessary Unless Board Members Have Questions ====================================================== 1. Update on Public Comment Periods 2. Reports from Board Committees a. Board Governance Committee - 8 April 2009 Minutes and May 2009 Preliminary Report b. Finance Committee - 16 April 2009 Preliminary Report c. IANA Committee - 28 April 2009 Preliminary Report d. Public Participation Committee - 14 April 2009 Preliminary Report e. Structural Improvements Committee - 15 April 2009 Minutes -- 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

Notification of ALAC participants in the ccPDP for Internationalised Domain Names
by At-Large Staff May 13, 2009

May 13, 2009

Dear Bart and Chris: We have been requested to inform you that the ALAC has nominated the following persons to participate in the ccPDP for IDNs on its behalf: Cheryl LANGDON-ORR Sivasubramanian MUTHUSAMY -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Heidi Ullrich, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: [governance] EC IG Hearing
by Carlton Samuels May 8, 2009

May 8, 2009

Here's a good report on the results of the European Commission's latest IG forum. We must continue to be vigilant and insist on civil society's role in managing ICANN's remit should not be reduced but improved, deepened and institutionalized. Y'all can thank Wolfgang K. Carlton Samuels ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang" < wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de> Date: 2009/5/8 Subject: [governance] EC IG Hearing To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org Dear list additionally to Christopher Wilkinsions short first report here are some additional reflections about the hearing: 1. the good thing is that the Commission is now moving, although it is still unclear in what direction. My impression is that the High Level Group, where only the 27 member states are represented, have no consensus and are searching for a unified position. Insofar the Hearing was a good opportunity to let them know what the various stakeholders think about it. 2. Multistakeholderism is still not internalized into the Commission approach. While in theory the Commission supports the principle it has difficulties to translate this principle into their own internal procedures and understandings of PDP. There is also a mixed approach to civil society. They want to have them in but they do not have a real clue and strategy how and who. 3. There is a broad and 100 per cent consensus amont member states and the european community (at least the groups represented in the room) that the IGF is a good thing, is an innovation in international politics and should be further strengthened (also by a more intensive involvement of European governments and parliamentarins) 4. There was no support for any new type of intergovernmental mechanism for IG (neither G 12 nor IG 20 nor ITU). The GAC was seen as the main channel where governments can express their positions. However there was no room to discuss this more in details, inter alia how to improve and enhance the procedures for interaction among GAC and ICANN Board, in particular with regard to issues with a public policy dimension (veto right for the GAC? On which basis? Quroum for GAC participation etc.) 5. There was some criticism on ICANN with regard to accountabilty and internationalization however ICANN was seen as the best of all the bad solutions. There was a clear feeling that ICANN has to improve further, in particular with transparency, accountability, internal multistakeholder mechanisms and internationalization. 6. There was no clear proposal for a post JPA arrangement. There was also no idea how to deal with the IANA contract. The proposal by the Commissioner was not discussed in detail, but it got mixed reaction and was atered down as a "personal reflection" and a "contribution to the debate". 7. Security and DNSSEc plaid an important role. Also IPv6. The contributions came here from the tehcnical community and there was no opposition to their statements. In my interventions I raised a number of issues including * more transparency in the work of the High Level Group * more practicial implementation of the multistakehooder princpal in practical EU PDPs * stronger support for European CS by the Commission (also a concept how to enable CS (and ressource them) to make the European CS voice heard in the IGF and ICANN context. * support for the EURODIG concept as an all-European platform which would go beyond (but include) commission, council and parliament. Lets wait an see what the effect of the hearing will have in the coming weeks. Best regards Wolfgang I was also in Lisbon but had no time to report back,. The best report is the article by Monika Ermert in Intellectual Property Watch. http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/28/2009-world-telecom-policy-forum-a…< http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/04/28/2009-world-telecom-policy-forum-a… > BTW Lisbon was just for governments and private sector members. Individual Internet users were allowed to listen but not to speak. When I asked the chair whether he woukld allow me to speak he (it was my fellow man Abdullah from Saudi Arabia a formerWGIG member) told me that I can send a written contribution which will be posted on the website but I had no right to speak. It was even worse than WSIS 2002.

1 0

***SPAM*** Regional Representatives Needed
by alac＠icann.org May 5, 2009

May 5, 2009

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [governance] Here's the "change" you've been waiting for...
by Vanda Scartezini May 3, 2009

May 3, 2009

I guess it is important to know which ideas are showing up in US about internet….. Vanda Scartezini POLO Consultores Associados & IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 cjs 1407/8 01418-903 Sao Paulo,SP. Fone + 55 11 3266.6253 Mob + 5511 8181.1464 From: Karl E. Peters [mailto:kpeters@tldainc.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 12:41 PM To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Here's the "change" you've been waiting for... MEDIA MATTERS U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net 'Fairness Doctrine' Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail _____ Posted: April 27, 2009 8:41 pm Eastern © 2009 WorldNetDaily <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/images/misc/sunsteintwo.jpg> Cass Sunstein WASHINGTON - Barack Obama's nominee for "regulatory czar" has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the <http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96301> Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period. The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama's friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O'Leary, <http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM…> "Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech." OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government. Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing. "A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name." <http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?DEPARTMENT_ID=6&SUBDEPARTMENT_ID=20&ITEM…> It's time to put up or shut up, America. Literally. Get the book that shows how to fight the assault on your freedom of speech! Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory "electronic sidewalks" for the Net. These "sidewalks" would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as "The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet." "Apparently in Sunstein's world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires," Thierer wrote. Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional." Sign <http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=87882> the petition to block federal government attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of the press! Perhaps Sunstein's most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book "Nudge," written with Richard Thaler, for a "Civility Check" for e-mails and other online communications. "The modern world suffers from insufficient civility," they wrote. "Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don't send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven't learned the rule or don't always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month." That's where the "Civility Check" comes in. "We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather's birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)." Sunstein's nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views: * In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S. * In his book "Radicals in Robes," he wrote: "[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms." * In his 2004 book, "Animal Rights," he wrote: "Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives ..." * In "Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer," he wrote "[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture." "As one of America's leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics," said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. "He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration's regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team." O'Leary disagrees. "It's hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein," he says. "Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that 'limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.' If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online - right down to our personal e-mail communications - would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government." For media inquiries for Brad O'Leary, please send an e-mail here <mailto:press@wnd.com> . <http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20> Bookmark and Share _____ If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll. <http://forums.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=406>

1 0

GAC Response to the Board related to Geographic Terms Protection in the new gTLD Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

Dear WG Members: You may be interested in the following. In particular, you may wish to consider the following closing sentence of the GAC statement in the context of the working group's continuing work on the new gTLD process: "*The GAC looks forward to receiving comments on proposed methodology from interested supporting organizations and advisory committees and ultimately from the Board."* --- GAC Response to Geographic Terms Protection 24 April 2009 In accordance with the 6 March, 2009 ICANN Board resolution, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) responded to ICANN's 17 March, 2009 letter regarding Protection for Geographic Terms in New gTLDs (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-06mar09.htm#08) The resolution was in response to ICANN's requests for GAC assistance regarding implementation of New gTLD's and in particular the treatment of applications for certain geographic place names. The GAC issued this timely reply in accordance with the ICANN Board resolution. (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf [PDF, 96K]) The Board requested a final report from the GAC by 25 May, 2009. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Tel: +33 (450) 42 81 83 USA Tel: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: : +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: (Switzerland): +41 79 595 5468 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

1 0

Notice of Inquiry - ICANN-USG JPA
by Carlton Samuels April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

Dear Colleagues: The United States Government has issued a NOI in the Federal Register on the JPA which is set to expire in September 2009. They are asking for our comments before 8th June, 2009. See the text by following the link: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9409.htm Carlton Samuels

1 0

Approved statement on the ALAC Review Final Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

Appended and attached is the statement approved at today's ALAC meeting. Alan -------------------------- ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort. This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments. Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything. Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this. Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board. Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome. Implementation: While we agree with many of the WG's comments and recommendations, we also consider them to be a significant expansion of the ALAC's functions and responsibilities and stress that if they are to be achieved then they must be adequately resourced, and that those resources must be provided in a timely manner. We ask the WG to recommend to the board that budget be put aside so the WG's recommendations can be implemented in a timely manner and there is no need to wait for a future budget and/or planning cycle.

1 0

ALAC comments on the ALAC Review Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg April 28, 2009

April 28, 2009

I was asked to put together a draft of comments on the Final Report of the ALAC Review Working Group. Following discussions with a number of ALAC members, and factoring in discussions in Mexico City, I have put together a short reply. I think it reflects all that I heard. It is now posted on the Wiki attached to the agenda for the meeting next week (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_review_comment_april_2009) It is also appended here for your convenience. The comment period has been extended until April 30th, so we will need to approve whatever we submit at the meeting next week (or in the two days following the meeting, which is not practical). So if you disagree with what is here, or feel that something important is omitted, please speak up. Alan ======================= ALAC Comments on Final Draft Report of the ALAC Review Working Group The ALAC is generally pleased with and supportive of the draft report. We are particularly pleased that the Working Group (WG) understood and acknowledged that the ALAC has a role far wider than just gTLDs a position that has not been well understood during the entire GNSO restructuring effort. This support notwithstanding, we do have a few specific comments. Planning: There is no doubt that the ALAC must be more effective in planning, and that this planning should be linked to the ICANN Strategic and Operational Plans. However, we caution the WG not to push this integration too far. Just as with the other ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, the main ALAC focus must be on policy, and much of this is going to be linked to varying issues-of-the-day. There is no point in the ALAC spending much of its valuable time on planning if there is no time left to actually do anything. Finances: We support the tying activities and their results to their costs. Only through mechanisms such as that can we aim for cost-effective activities and structures. We look forward to being in a position to work with ICANN staff on implementing this. Board Seats: While we fully support the concept of replacing the current ALAC Liaison with two voting Board seats, we must make it clear that the mechanism by which these Board members are chosen will be critical to success. Todays Board members do not represent the organizations that select them, but they are selected by those organizations because of a belief that the Supporting Organization and the prospective Board member share a world view of things. While the model used by the todays Supporting Organizations may not the be one that is suitable for At-Large, it will be essential for the ALAC to be sufficiently engaged in the process so as to ensure good ongoing communications between the ALAC and the Board. Skills and Competencies: Although not discussed directly in the report, one area that needs to be addressed is that of ALAC skills and competencies. Since the majority of ALAC members are chosen by RALOs to best meet their needs, the ALAC has minimal control over the skills they have. As a result, we are often lacking the skills that we need. Examples include skills and competencies associated with planning; running a meeting; and running a working group. Any suggestion from the WG on structural or other changes needed to address this problem would be welcome.

5 9