I am unconvinced of the need to say something. Certainly nothing of the kind of comment I have seen to date. Does nobody else but me have a deep-rooted objection to the whole concept of the contracted parties having a significant say in GNSO policy? Why is ALAC just lying down dead in refusing to challenge this core principle, preferring instead to validate the in-fighting over how to slice up the scraps left to represent the non-contracted (ie, the billions of the rest of us)? The *DUTY* of ALAC is to advise ICANN on the public interest.... and in the matter of the GNSO restructure it has, at least to these eyes, utterly shirked this duty. We should be telling the Board that (or at least driving debate over whether) the core doctrine of "fairness" between contracted and non-contracted parties is WRONG. As an AC we have the ability -- and the responsibility -- to confront bad core assumptions. Instead I see ALAC taking the easy way out, being satisfied with trying to clean up the damage caused by those bad assumptions rather than challenging the assumptions themselves. As it is, the relatively trivial matter of GNSO user house restructuring can come and go without ALAC comment so far as I'm concerned. Sometimes being silent can be a statement on its own.... - Evan