The two components of the message that stuck out to me: - The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more stakeholders than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more deeply involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than lip-service paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be gamed. - "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for its lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many stages. It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the word "delay" is now officially an obscenity. -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56