And it is an issue that I suspect the two of us will have a number of spirited debates over during the coming years. ;-) Alan At 25/09/2008 05:17 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
This is probably more an observation than something that would pertain to the document, but, you wrote:
"I note that most ALSs existed before they joined At-Large - they have lives and interests of their own which may or may not coincide with multiple ICANN outreach directions. Once can easily imagine a community-owned wireless network becoming an ALS and a member of the ISP or Registrar Constituencies."
I would argue that the ALAC should not admit ALSs into ALAC if they are members of other constituencies whose interests often represent a conflict of interest to that of users, i.e., registrars. ________________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:09 PM To: ALAC Working List Subject: [ALAC] Draft Answers to Sept. 19 GNSO questions.
Attached is a draft of the reply to the Sept. 19 questions on GNSO restructuring. The are based on my thoughts sent out the same day. Sebastian was the only person to comment, and the present document incorporates most of his comments.
The official deadline is TOMORROW, Friday, Sept 26.
Any comments should be made quickly.
Alan
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.