Dear all, I was putting some comments in the chat but I thought it was better to summarise my thoughts in an email. About the ALAC Chair elections, first of all warm congratulations to JZ and many thanks to Maureen for the great job done. Although I am perfectly happy with the choice, I believe that Sébastien has a point in addressing a timing issue related to the NomCom decision. The problem that I have is just formal, at it is that the outgoing ALAC has elected the incoming Chair. Again, to be clear, this is not an issue of substance or contents, just the form. I would suggest two things: * first, that we, as ICANN community, have a more careful look at the schedule - if the AGM is two months earlier than usual, all activities, including NomCom processes, have to be adjusted accordingly; * second, that as soon as the new ALAC is seated in KL they formally approve by acclamation the new ALAC Chair - this will address any formal issues that could be raised in the future. I have spoken enough about the waiver, so just a comment on what Léon and Marita have been saying. I agree with Léon, the waiver has always been there, but as far as I can remember it has never used a language that raised eyebrows to the (few) people who have actually read it. So, what made us all more aware of it, was the additional clauses added after the pandemic - so Marita is not wrong either noting that the problem comes after the pandemic. My personal opinion is that the pandemic has made things more difficult to everybody and has increased the risk of consequences. I acknowledge the great job in organising a hybrid meeting under the circumstances - I spoke to Nick Tomasso in Den Haag, and appreciate the challenges - no question about. The point is that, if we have a higher risk, how is this risk shared between icann.org<http://icann.org> and the volunteers? The way this risk is shared affects the motivation of the volunteers, as has been also observed during the meeting, while it has only a marginal effect on other participants who might have their employers assuming the consequences of the risk. And this widens the gap, already wide enough, between the two types of representation and participation. This is why it has to be addressed. Cheers, Roberto