Hello all,

just a kind reminder, a few hours away from the At-Large Comments closing.
I have heard in corridors that some people were concerned about the lack of overall review of the GNSO's structure and most of the recommendations focussed on GNSO Working Groups and small adjustments rather than taking a serious look at the GNSO's bicameral structure. Yet, I have not seen any actual written confirmation of this concern here. Could you please all take a short moment to write your concerns, if any, that should be part of an overall comment that falls outside the (narrow) scope of the actual recommendations made by Westlake Consultants?
Kindest regards,

Olivier


On 16/07/2015 08:00, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Hello all,

of particular interest, is identifying what is *missing* from the Review. Suggestions welcome.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 16/07/2015 03:00, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote:
Dear All, 

Alan Greenberg, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Draft Report: Review of the Generic Names Supporting Organization in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process.

The current draft, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/35U0Aw. 

Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 22 July 2015 23:59 UTC.

Regards,
 
Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew
ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC
Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge