Dear Fatima, Thank you for the beautifully worded statement and substantive input from LACRALO. I am delighted that there is interest from the At-Large community on the TLG issue, which I consider to be very important to ICANN. To ensure that there is no confusion as we discuss the matter, here is a quick review of how ICANN presents the “problem”: A. (Extracted from http://www.icann.org/en/groups/reviews/tlg/board-technical-relations-wg-fina...) “The Technical Liaison Group (TLG), comprised of the IAB, ETSI, W3C and ITU –T, is chartered by the ICANN by laws to "connect the Board with appropriate sources of technical advice on specific matters pertinent to ICANN's activities." Additionally, the group appoints (in an annual rotation between ETSI, W3C and ITU - T) a non-voting liaison to the ICANN Board, and a voting delegate to the ICANN Nominating Committee. The TLG is, by the ICANN bylaws, prohibited from meeting or formulating positions of its own. According to ICANN ́s bylaws, there are two ways in which the TLG can be used to "channel technical information and guidance to the Board and to other ICANN entities". ICANN can specifically request information from the TLG, or the TLG can provide a watchdog activity, "to advise the Board of the relevance and progress of technical developments in the areas covered by each organization's scope that could affect Board decisions or other ICANN actions, and to draw attention to global technical standards issues that affect policy development within the scope of ICANN's mission." These mechanisms have rarely, if ever been invoked.” B. (Extracted from Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose in https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicyde/At-Large+Proposed+Bylaws+Changes+Regarding+the+Technical+Liaison+Group+Workspace<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Proposed+Bylaws+Changes+Regarding+the+Technical+Liaison+Group+Workspace> ) "The Bylaws changes [of removing the TLG Liaison from the Board and the TLD Representative from the composition of the Nominating Committee] do not represent any change to the role of the TLG, which is to "channel technical information and guidance to the Board and other ICANN entities." Nor is there any change to four entities that make up the TLG. This proposed change is directed only towards simplifying how the TLG operates and delivers technical advice to the Board." *Further thoughts on the situation: * (1) Problem-Solving Time Lag I find it curious that the final report of the Board Technical Relations Working Group is dated 22 August 2011 and we are only requested to comment on the proposed bylaws changes now in the final quarter of 2013. (2) Dilemma in Removal of the TLG Liaison from the Board In principle, one liaison from one organization per year from a group of 4 different organizations (let’s differentiate IAB and IETF for discussion) can be viewed as a structural constraint in the provision of technical advice. While there is this constraint, there is testimony of excellent TLG Liaison advice/input in the past that had been critical in Board decision-making (see public comments to JAS Communications Report). This does not mean that the one liaison position should not be removed to break the constraint, but it does mean that there needs to be a better mechanism for obtaining advice from the group as a whole. Until now, the mechanism is not yet evident and must be made evident and subject to community input/public comment. In moving forward, to continue receiving excellent input/advice from members of the TLG, criteria to ensure that excellent representatives are selected to interface with ICANN by the sending organizations would be crucial . (3) Relevance of Organizations in the TLG There appears to be no objection to the relevance of the organizations in the TLG, which can be viewed as reinforcing. And no one appears to be suggesting that new entities should be added to the group (so far) even though the Board Technical Relations Working Group has reviewed a wider list of organizations. (4) Mechanism for a Fully Functional TLG There is general agreement that the TLG has not worked in the way that it was envisioned/intended. How it was intended was to have Board-issued requests for information/advice as well as proactive “watchdog” advice provision by TLG group members. On the former, I believe that at times it can be difficult for the Board to know what specific questions to ask, and timing also matters greatly. On the latter, the group members may not be aware that they are expected to provide proactive advice, without being asked, and this could be specified in organizational MOUs and Group Member Terms of Reference, and reflected in Group Member KPIs. *Excellent value-additions from the LACRALO Statement:* 1. Proposing the criterion of reciprocity to enhance inter-organizational cooperation. 2. Thorough consultations with the entire ICANN community to find an appropriate and effective mechanism to "improve" the current TLG arrangement - (I would suggest using "improve" over "replacing" because we are not replacing the TLG, but changing how it works). 3. A TLG structure and mechanism for obtaining input/advice that allow for constant access to the necessary technical competence, and not only through distance consultation - (We all understand the value of face-to-face engagements and it is an important aspect of making things work better) . 4. The reference to the ALAC and its diverse membership as also capable of giving technical advice as well, specifically in relation to the technical issues that are within the sphere of At-Large knowledge and interests. 5. The reference to technical constituencies that includes the ASO, which participate the different RIRs, and the IETF, which has a permanent seat on the Board. *One point that needs to be clarified from the LACRALO Statement* “...ICANN already contains within its own structure the bodies responsible for providing this technical advice to the Board.” Yes to some extent, but not in the coverage of entities that do not fall under ICANN constituencies/stakeholder groups and who deal with complements to the DNS, such as the W3C, ETSI and ITU-T (which are key for ICANN). --- I hope that LACRALO and the ALAC find the above input useful for further deliberations over the ALAC statement. Best regards, Rinalia