- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Co-Chair, Accountability CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 24, 2014

Nov. 24, 2014

This is update. I do not have a definitive written answer on whether a Participant Co-Chair will be funded to attend any face-to-face (f2f) meetings of the CCWG, but I did discuss it with ICANN staff. The informal answer was that it would not make no sense if a co-chair, an important part of the CCWG, could not attend a f2f meeting. Based on that I am comfortable in presuming that IF we appoint a co-chair who is not also a Member, that person will be appropriately funded for any CCWG f2f meeting. Given this and the tight time-frame, I would recommend that the Selection Committee attempt to identify a possible co-chair for the ALAC to ratify. That person could be one of the Members that they select, or someone who is not being recommended as a Member. Presuming that Olivier (as Selection Committee Chair) agrees with plan, I will ask that this be discussed and decided during the Tuesday ALAC meeting. Alan At 15/11/2014 11:17 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >The Charter of the Accountability CCWG allows the ALAC to name a >Co-Chair. There is no rule regarding whether the Co-Chair is one of >the five Members that we plan to select or a non-Member Participant. > >If we select a person as Co-Chair who is not one of our formal >Members, there is a question whether that person would be funded to >travel to any face-to-face meeting (for the IANA CWG, only Members >have been funded). I have asked whether a non-Member Co-Chair will >be funded, but as yet no reply. > >My thoughts on the matter are: > >1. We definitely want have a Co-Chair select by the ALAC. >2. We want to pick that person based on their ability to carry out >the job and to dedicate sufficient time to the process. >3. If ICANN will NOT fund a participant for travel, we should >restrict our selection to one of the five people selected to be Members >4. If a non-Member Co-Chair WILL be funded, Olivier's selection >committee should identify possible candidates (ie candidates not >selected as Members). >5. From this pool, Members and other possible Chairs, some may not >willing to act as Co-Chair. >6. The ALT should review the candidates and recommend the person to >be named Co-Chair (this is inline with other selections we have done >recently, the candidates would need to grant the ALT access to their >EoIs to be considered). > >At this point, there is nothing we can really do until the selection >is done and we know the situation regarding funding. > >I welcome thoughts on whether we should select a CCWG Co-Chair, and >if so, how do we go about doing this if different from my scenario above. > >Alan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

REMINDER - NOW OPEN: Call for candidates in the At-Large community for the ICANN Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Nov. 23, 2014

Nov. 23, 2014

Dear all, a kind reminder of the call for candidates below: today should give you some time to spend putting together your Expression of Interest. The meeting of the Community Working Group on IANA Stewardship Naming Issues took place this week in Frankfurt and it is clear that an emphasis on ICANN Accountability is needed, with a strong link between the IANA Stewardship Transition and the ICANN Accountability sub-group 1. We need great candidates for a *critical* process for the Internet! Kind regards, Olivier On 17/11/2014 02:06, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: > > Dear All, > > Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the At-Large Sub-Committee on the > Selection of Members for the ICANN Cross Community Working Group on > Enhancing ICANN Accountability, has requested a call for candidates in > the At-Large community for the ICANN Cross Community Working Group on > Enhancing ICANN Accountability. > > On 10 October 2014, ICANN published Revised Enhancing ICANN > Accountability: Process and Next Steps > <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-10-10-en>, a document > that describes the process to examine how ICANN's accountability > mechanisms should be strengthened to address the absence of its > historical relationship with the US Government and to strengthen its > overall accountability and governance processes. The process will be > carried out by a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG). A Drafting Team > which included two members of the ALAC was convened to propose a > Charter for the CCWG. On 05 November 2014, the Charter > <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-11-05-en> was presented > and is now undergoing ratification by ICANN's Supporting Organizations > (SO) and Advisory Committees (AC). > > The Charter allows the ALAC to name five people and our intent is to > select one per ICANN region (based on citizenship as per ALAC > membership). > > Under the assumption that the charter will be ratified by the majority > of ICANN ACs and SOs, the selection of ALAC representatives is now > beginning. > > Members must be familiar with, or be prepared to quickly learn about, > current ICANN accountability measures and the earlier Accountability > and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) efforts (see > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/enhancing-accountability-2014-05-06-en, > Section "Inventory of ICANN's Accountability Efforts"). > > Members must also commit to actively participate in the activities of > the CCWG-Accountability on an ongoing and long-term basis. This means > attending conference calls which will likely last 60-90 minutes per > week, ongoing mailing list interactions and the ability to travel to > any potential face to face meeting, if the CCWG decides to do so. The > total length of engagement is likely to be at least 6 months to a year > or possibly more. > > The "At-Large Sub-Committee on the Selection of Members for the ICANN > Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability" > (“Selection Committee”) is requesting that interested members from the > At-Large Community submit an Expression of Interest (EoI) to > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> by > *Wednesday, 26 November 2014 23:59 UTC*. In their EoI, candidates > should respond to the following: > > * A resume (maximum three pages) > * A statement explaining why they are interested in serving in this > capacity > * A Declaration of Interests indicating any potential or actual > conflicts > * Respond to the following questions addressing your ability to > carry out posed by the Selection Committee as follows: > * (a) Why do you believe that you are in a position to fairly defend > end user interests on the ICANN Accountability CCWG? (b) Are you > prepared to act as a representative of the ALAC act according to > the directions set by the ALAC? (c) Please describe previous roles > you have held liaising on behalf of a third party. (d) Describe > how you meet or will meet the criteria regarding ICANNs current > accountability mechanisms and review processes (e) Are you > prepared to make the participation and time commitment specified > above? > > The candidate EoI will be published in a secured section of the > Selection Committee wiki page <https://community.icann.org/x/QpDhAg>, > which only Selection Committee members can access. > > Regards, > > > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine and Terri Agnew > > ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC > > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > <applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> > > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge > <https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> > > Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> > > >

1 0

Co-Chair, Accountability CCWG
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 19, 2014

Nov. 19, 2014

The Charter of the Accountability CCWG allows the ALAC to name a Co-Chair. There is no rule regarding whether the Co-Chair is one of the five Members that we plan to select or a non-Member Participant. If we select a person as Co-Chair who is not one of our formal Members, there is a question whether that person would be funded to travel to any face-to-face meeting (for the IANA CWG, only Members have been funded). I have asked whether a non-Member Co-Chair will be funded, but as yet no reply. My thoughts on the matter are: 1. We definitely want have a Co-Chair select by the ALAC. 2. We want to pick that person based on their ability to carry out the job and to dedicate sufficient time to the process. 3. If ICANN will NOT fund a participant for travel, we should restrict our selection to one of the five people selected to be Members 4. If a non-Member Co-Chair WILL be funded, Olivier's selection committee should identify possible candidates (ie candidates not selected as Members). 5. From this pool, Members and other possible Chairs, some may not willing to act as Co-Chair. 6. The ALT should review the candidates and recommend the person to be named Co-Chair (this is inline with other selections we have done recently, the candidates would need to grant the ALT access to their EoIs to be considered). At this point, there is nothing we can really do until the selection is done and we know the situation regarding funding. I welcome thoughts on whether we should select a CCWG Co-Chair, and if so, how do we go about doing this if different from my scenario above. Alan

8 9

Call for Penholder(s): ICANN Draft Five-Year Operating Plan
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 17, 2014

Nov. 17, 2014

Dear All, We are seeking penholder(s) to draft an ALAC Statement in response to the following public comment request: ICANN Draft Five-Year Operating Plan<https://community.icann.org/x/izTxAg>. If you'd like to volunteer, please kindly contact staff. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Co-Chair, Accountability CCWG
by Maureen Hilyard Nov. 17, 2014

Nov. 17, 2014

I agree too Maureen Hilyard, Cook Islands - Samsung Mobile Fatima Cambronero <fatimacambronero(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Same from here. +1 to Sandra. > >Fatima > >2014-11-17 8:39 GMT-03:00 León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx>: > >> +1 to Sandra >> >> Enviado desde mi iPhone >> >> > El 17/11/2014, a las 6:29, sandra hoferichter <info(a)hoferichter.eu> >> escribió: >> > >> > Co-chair yes, but either we wait until we have clarity on the funding >> issue >> > or we restrict our selection to one of the five people selected to be >> > Members >> > >> > Sandra >> > >> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- >> > Von: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alan >> Greenberg >> > Gesendet: Samstag, 15. November 2014 17:18 >> > An: ALAC >> > Betreff: [ALAC] Co-Chair, Accountability CCWG >> > >> > The Charter of the Accountability CCWG allows the ALAC to name a >> Co-Chair. >> > There is no rule regarding whether the Co-Chair is one of the five >> Members >> > that we plan to select or a non-Member Participant. >> > >> > If we select a person as Co-Chair who is not one of our formal Members, >> > there is a question whether that person would be funded to travel to any >> > face-to-face meeting (for the IANA CWG, only Members have been funded). I >> > have asked whether a non-Member Co-Chair will be funded, but as yet no >> > reply. >> > >> > My thoughts on the matter are: >> > >> > 1. We definitely want have a Co-Chair select by the ALAC. >> > 2. We want to pick that person based on their ability to carry out the >> job >> > and to dedicate sufficient time to the process. >> > 3. If ICANN will NOT fund a participant for travel, we should restrict >> our >> > selection to one of the five people selected to be Members 4. If a >> > non-Member Co-Chair WILL be funded, Olivier's selection committee should >> > identify possible candidates (ie candidates not selected as Members). >> > 5. From this pool, Members and other possible Chairs, some may not >> willing >> > to act as Co-Chair. >> > 6. The ALT should review the candidates and recommend the person to be >> named >> > Co-Chair (this is inline with other selections we have done recently, the >> > candidates would need to grant the ALT access to their EoIs to be >> > considered). >> > >> > At this point, there is nothing we can really do until the selection is >> done >> > and we know the situation regarding funding. >> > >> > I welcome thoughts on whether we should select a CCWG Co-Chair, and if >> so, >> > how do we go about doing this if different from my scenario above. >> > >> > Alan >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ALAC mailing list >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> > >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: >> > >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA >> > C) >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > ALAC mailing list >> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> > >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> > ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: >> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >> > > > >-- >*Fatima Cambronero* >Abogada-Argentina > >Phone: +54 9351 5282 668 >Twitter: @facambronero >Skype: fatima.cambronero >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Co-Chair, Accountability CCWG
by Beran Gillen - Yahoo Nov. 16, 2014

Nov. 16, 2014

Dear Alan I agree with your suggestions on co- chair selection. Beran "There is nothing more difficult to arrange and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change..." Machiavelli Sent from my iPhone > On 16 Nov 2014, at 09:33, Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> wrote: > > Dear Alan, > > > > 1. Yes, we need to appoint a co-chair for the CCWG. > > 2. I agree with your approach of selecting the co-chair > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: + 216 41 649 605 > > Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 > > Fax: + 216 70 853 376 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : samedi 15 novembre 2014 17:18 > À : ALAC > Objet : [ALAC] Co-Chair, Accountability CCWG > > > > The Charter of the Accountability CCWG allows the ALAC to name a > > Co-Chair. There is no rule regarding whether the Co-Chair is one of > > the five Members that we plan to select or a non-Member Participant. > > > > If we select a person as Co-Chair who is not one of our formal > > Members, there is a question whether that person would be funded to > > travel to any face-to-face meeting (for the IANA CWG, only Members > > have been funded). I have asked whether a non-Member Co-Chair will be > > funded, but as yet no reply. > > > > My thoughts on the matter are: > > > > 1. We definitely want have a Co-Chair select by the ALAC. > > 2. We want to pick that person based on their ability to carry out > > the job and to dedicate sufficient time to the process. > > 3. If ICANN will NOT fund a participant for travel, we should > > restrict our selection to one of the five people selected to be Members > > 4. If a non-Member Co-Chair WILL be funded, Olivier's selection > > committee should identify possible candidates (ie candidates not > > selected as Members). > > 5. From this pool, Members and other possible Chairs, some may not > > willing to act as Co-Chair. > > 6. The ALT should review the candidates and recommend the person to > > be named Co-Chair (this is inline with other selections we have done > > recently, the candidates would need to grant the ALT access to their > > EoIs to be considered). > > > > At this point, there is nothing we can really do until the selection > > is done and we know the situation regarding funding. > > > > I welcome thoughts on whether we should select a CCWG Co-Chair, and > > if so, how do we go about doing this if different from my scenario above. > > > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA > C) > > > > --- > Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active. > http://www.avast.com > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Important ALAC Survey About IANA Stewardship Transition Naming Issues
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 16, 2014

Nov. 16, 2014

Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the IANA Issues Working Group and Vice Chair of the ALAC has asked that a survey be sent to the members of the IANA Issues Working Group, as well as the ALAC working list. You may access the survey at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/C5CNWG9. Kindly see the introduction of the survey below. *** The CWG on IANA Stewardship Transition Naming Issues (CWG) will have a face-to-face meeting from Wednesday 19 November to Thursday 20 November. Our five ALAC representatives in this working group need to have a coordinated point of view BEFORE that date. First, we need to make a decision on two initial over-arching questions related solely to Naming Issues: 1. Should the US Government Stewardship oversight of the IANA function be replaced by a new Oversight Body, or should it be replaced by a mechanism for oversight? (Please note that policy development will remain in ICANN; here we are speaking of operational oversight, making sure that the IANA functions are run according to its defined procedures.) 2. If the CWG decides to create an Oversight Body, should this body be IN ICANN or INDEPENDENT of ICANN. Three proposals for an Oversight Body are on the table for discussion: (1) creating this body within ICANN - a committee that would be consist of ICANN community members (2) creating this body in a subsidiary of ICANN - a committee housed in a semi-independent organisation that would be a subsidiary of ICANN (3) creating this body in an entirely independent and new organisation outside of ICANN The three proposals are further detailed in this survey, which divides the proposal into sections based on their individual segments. Please be so kind to read the segments carefully and point out which ones you would favor. Please note that you do not need to favor segments from the same proposal. Also, if you would like to see some combination of segments across the proposals, or have other suggestions, you may elaborate on your idea in the comment sections. If you don't support the creation of an Oversight Body for the naming related IANA Functions, please still complete the rest of the survey with the assumption that an Oversight Body would be created. In that way, our representatives on the CWG can have a fall-back position to work with if the CWG decides to go ahead with creating an Oversight Body. Please note that the questions marked with the asterisk sign are mandatory. The three proposals are available at: https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49361666/StrawmanMatrix.pdf If you have any questions prior to answering this survey, do not hesitate to ask them on either alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org or iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge>

2 2

REVISED: Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2014

Nov. 14, 2014

As you have seen, Olivier had identified a number of changes to the document which made it more grammatically correct, clarified the meaning, or otherwise improved the document. None of the changes altered the overall intent or tone of the document. I am attaching the new version as well as a redline version showing the changes. The vote was not halted during this process. If anyone who voted before this change was posted feels they must change their vote, please let Ariel know. I do apologize for the haste with which this was done and the resultant problems. I do believe that the timing was important, and we can only hope that we will be successful in changing how these new TLDs are rolled out. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

Evan, I believe that all (or most) of the changes that Olivier is suggesting are cosmetic and do not at all change the intent or meaning of the statement. If I had more time, I probably would have caught most last night. Please try to make these changes and I will get it reported (and a formal note of explanation to the ALAC) when I return in a few hours. Alan At 13/11/2014 01:57 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 13 November 2014 11:28, Olivier MJ >Crepin-Leblond <<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >Dear Alan, > >thank you for this. I realise that time is of the essence, so will be >short in my comments: > >1. This is a formal follow-up Advice from the ALAC. > > > >âMaybe this is hair-splitting, but it is more >as background to existing advice -- caused by >the Board's need for more information -- rather than new independent Advice. > >ALAC has long had to deal with different >classifications of what it votes on. As this >document itself contains no recommended courses >of action itself, I would not call it Advice.â > > >As such, when >mentioning names etc. it should be better if a certain level of >formality is upheld. When citing names, please cite the full name: >"The heightened protection measures announced by Fadi, at the start of >ICANN51" >-> The heightened protection measures announced by ICANN President and >CEO Fadi ChehadÃ©, at the start of ICANN51" >â > > > >[...other generally-sensible edits ...]â > > > >âBelieve me, Olivier, given more time there is >much that could have been refined, added, and >maybe even taken out. Notably, more time would >have enabled direct answers to the illogical >Registry response that PICs can only be fixed >through a PDP (as the PICs themselves were not created by a PDP). > >But doing even a usable statement able to >actually be effective has been a fight >âagainst time, which is the reason the voting >period is so compressed. Similarly, consultation >with the gTLD WG was also compressed (and was >not helped when the email thread started by my >urgently asking the WG to review the original >draft was hijacked for an unrelated purpose :-P ). > >The Board is **now** considering its response to >our Advice from ICANN51. To say this >"backgrounder" was done expediently is an >understatement. In the time it would take to >incorporate your edits (and others that would be >considered), the document will have been >rendered nearly useless by not getting to the >Board in time. Your indulgence is appreciated. > >âOTOH, if there is anything FACTUALLY (rather >than stylistically) wrong with the doc, that needs addressing.â > > >â- Evanâ

5 7

Follow-up on the ALAC Advice to the Board regarding PICs
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 13, 2014

Nov. 13, 2014

You will recall that at ICANN51, the ALAC submitted a very controversial piece of Advice to the ICANN Board, specifically that the New gTLD applications and delegations for specific TLDs be frozen until appropriate public interest safeguards can be put in place. The TLDs in question were those referred to by the GAC as Category 1 TLDs in the fields of health, education, finance, charities and gambling, identified by the GAC as particularly sensitive, requiring enhanced safeguards to build public trust. I understand that this advice is under review by the Board New gTLD Process Committee (NGPC). Our statement has received a lot of notice, particularly by the Registries. A letter from the Registry Stakeholder Group to the ICANN Board is attached. They STRONGLY recommend that the Board reject our advice. Accordingly, I believe that we must quickly reinforce our position. I have asked Evan Leibovitch and the ALAC New gTLD WG to provide further details on the short statement approved in LA, so that it may be taken into consideration by the NGPC. The statement is attached. There is nothing in this statement that was not already implied in the advice we have already given, but it sets out the details in such a way as to (hopefully) make our advice harder for the Board to dismiss completely. As the Registry Stakeholder Group points out, a freeze would be problematic. We are not trying to cause problems, but we do believe that the public interest MUST be served. I believe that this matter is of extreme urgency. Accordingly I am taking the rather unusual step of requesting that staff immediately initiate a 4-day vote to ratify this statement. The vote will start as soon as staff can initiate it and will end on Tuesday, 18 November at 23:59 UTC. PLEASE VOTE AS SOON AS YOU CAN. Once the vote has received sufficient support as to ensure that it passes, I will notify the Board. Alan

3 2