Dear Cheryl and members of the ALAC, Almost two years ago, on 30 November 2006, I first brought the issue of user domain renewal problems at RegisterFly to the attention of ICANN's Senior Management -- see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg05232.html As events unfolded that put hundreds of thousands of registrations at risk, we finally heard ICANN's CEO calling for decisive action: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA," he said. "There must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off." Yet as of this moment, we still have no comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process started or even scheduled, nor has action been taken by ICANN management to implement changes to the RAA in a decisive and timely fashion. What is clear to me is that ICANN Staff has (1) failed to do their job with respect to lauching a comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process; and (2) has acted to deceive the Board regarding the available options to amend/revise the RAA. Let me address this latter point first. At the Cairo Board Meeting, the Board was told: "So having developed a set of amendments, then, how do we incorporate these and make them effective into the RAA? The Registrar Accreditation Agreement calls for them to be incorporated through a consensus policy..." This above statement is certainly less than fully honest. In addition to consensus policy procedures, the RAA includes (1) an amendments & waivers clause (5.14), and (2) a Right to Substitute Updated Agreement clause (5.5). Choosing not to invoke the amendments and waivers clause and deciding not to substitute an updated agreement while waiting for a lengthy and time-consuming consensus policy development process to fully run its course is an irresponsible way forward. This is not how an organization takes "decisive action"; this is not how one honors a duty to protect the user interest. Proposal for ALAC action: 1. With regard to the staff failure to launch a comprehensive review of registrar accreditation processes a remedy is available through the Reconsideration process. A Reconsideration Request sent to the Committee of the Board on Reconsideration allows a petitioning entity to cite an "inaction of ICANN for which review or reconsideration is sought". Details are available here: http://www.icann.org/en/committees/reconsideration/ 2. With regard to the RAA, the ALAC should request a formal explanation from ICANN Staff as to why (1) invoking the amendments and waivers clause may not be pursued and (2) why an updated agreement may not be substituted. As both of these options are permitted by contract, we need to know why Staff has chosen not to pursue this viable course of action. Ongoing delays do not serve the user interest. When ICANN takes years and years and years to resolve major issues, the broader community loses confidence in ICANN's ability to manage the process. best regards, Danny Younger