Two thoughts... First, although I support the concept of keeping a Liaison, I will note that even with a Liaison, and I should add some VERY impressive ones, we have not met our targets of being treated with sufficient respect (if I may use that term to reflect a number of other things as well). So simply having that position filled has not proven to be the magic answer. Second, I note the SoI includes the following two questions in section C: 4. Provide a statement about what you would contribute in the At-Large selected ICANN Board Director position to the At-Large Community: 5. Please describe specifically how and why you will be able to advance, at the ICANN Board, the interests of the At-Large Community and the broader global community of Internet end-users. It is up to the BCEC and then the electorate to select someone who they believe WILL support the interests of At-Large as well as the general user community. Of course, a Board member can only do that when he or she believes it is also in the interests of ICANN, but those two sets of interests are not necessarily at odds with each other. Make sure that your representatives on the BCEC and then the electors know what we want. Alan At 23/08/2010 01:27 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

I share Adam's fear that, with the creation of the At-Large-appointed Director and elimination of Liaison, there is a possibility that ALAC's own work as a policy-development body will slide into far less relevance than it has now (and that bar is already very low). With nobody on the Board charged with advancing ALAC positions or relaying to ALAC the Board's feedback, we are technically at the same advisory level as any other group submitting public comments through those official mechanisms.