My sincere thanks to ALAC for its high participation on this vote and its unanimous support. The next step, in my opinion, is to ensure that our voice is not simply presented to the process, but that the staff who are assembling the guide actually pay attention to it. When Rudi and I spoke at the public gTLD session in Mexico, it is my opinion that we were responded to in a manner that I would characterize -- at best -- as patronizing. Concrete suggestions were dismissed out of hand. (A transcript for the masochistic is available at http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-applicant-guideboo...) Indeed, it was this specific exchange that inspired the comment in my closing Summit speech that "we still find within ICANN that merely having the ability to speak does not mean we get listened to". It is my understanding that US government input to the gTLD process shares our objection to the "morality and public order" objection. I am still at a loss to see who is defending this odious clause -- I would welcome open debate, but I don't even know *who* we would be debating (and ICANN has certainly done little to encourage open debate outside the GNSO, making its own staff the sole arbiter of conflicting views). ICANN is paying lots of attention to the intellectual property crowd and had even paid to create its own "think tank" on IP (of course dominated by those who want to maximize protection). I am not denying that that IP issues are important -- indeed there are public benefits to reduced phishing and other abuse through tougher trademark protection. However, I am concerned that ICANN has chosen its "priority" constituencies on this matter and that the public at large is not there. How do we change this attitude? Do we have any channels to address this short of the Board level? - Evan PS: As a reminder, the gTLD statement that ALAC has just approved can be seen at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_st...