My main concern with the ExecComm is that its creation alleviates the need for ALAC to confront its mechanics of issues-handling. How many such "urgent" situations (that the ExecComm has been created to address) have really happened? That is, how many issues have arisen of which ALAC had *no* prior awareness, that have been sprung on all of ICANN with very little notice and require "At-Large advice" within deadlines beyond the full ALAC's capacity to cope (ie, at its next meeting). What seems more likely is that ALAC is made aware of issues, acts insufficiently at the start because too few of its members get involved, and then goes into crisis management mode as deadlines approach. Thus the need for an opaque but fast-moving inner circle -- understandable because of the large number of ineffectual ALAC members but nonetheless still foul. And, of course, the existence of the ExecComm re-enforces the role of ALAC as responder rather than initiator, not to mention loading yet another level of hierarchy on a structure that's already overweight. The ExecComm may indeed have a reason for existing. But we should be up-front that it's an expedient move away from transparency, created to superficially address a problem of the ALAC's own creation. As such it is (and should be) a source of embarrassment. The ExecComm should be a temporary solution at most, with its prime mandate to determine how to avoid situations of "urgency" in the first place. I also want an assurance that the ExecComm will not use "urgency" as an excuse to override existing liaison procedures. For example, the ExecComm _must_ not deal in any official capacity with the Board without the assistance and awareness of our established Board liaison. The mandate of the ExecComm IMO *must* not include the creation of parallel communications channels. - Evan