Hello everyone, On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist. I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems. Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee. 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)? 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. - Evan