On 23 January 2014 02:51, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch <apisan@unam.mx>wrote:

Evan,

so let's itemize this:

1. if the ALAC is going to have the opinion that the panelist cheated floating around it better prepare for a visit to the Ombudsman.

I'm still not understanding how you are caught up on this premise. So let me be extremely clear. I am not for a moment accusing any adjudicator of cheating. In fact, I'm myself quite certain that did not happen, and that the panelists were performing their instructions properly. There is an argument to be made that the *processes* in place "cheated" (I prefer the less-charged term "fooled") At-Large community members into spending effort on making objections that could be deemed irrelevant. If there was deception, we must accept some blame for believing that the objection process could do more than it was designed to do. There are perhaps more lessons learned by us than by ICANN from this experience. Especially since, as I said, it has already happened to us before in the Applicant Support program. 2. if the conclusion about the PICs is that they are worthless and it is

now proved ex-post-facto, start drafting, and consulting the RALOs, for a prompt and clear communication. If they can be fixed proposed a fix, if they can't and we all agree, let's put it in writing again. All this should help prepare better cases than the one lost by numerous avoidable reasons, and a better environment for them. Let's serve the at-large users.

Uh.... you mean like this<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Revised+Public+In...> ? The perception of PICs being completely useless is currently only a personal one, shared by by myself and Carlton and some others. I am unaware of how widely spread the view is held. I am happy to engage ALAC members, RALOs and individual members of the community on the issue. - Evan