Danny, If ALAC's statements are of minor importance or can be ingnored by the board, why then was the ALAC's statement on domain tasting modified nearly at last minute towards the draft motion logic? If, furthermore, the AGP elimination was previously supported by even Business Constituency in the first place. What that significant happened that influenced the previously held ALAC stronger position? I, in contrast, think the ALAC statement is very important for keeping decorum and alibi for the board. Especially as regards such a sensitive problem like domain tasting is. Danny, I am not talking about bylaws, papers and such things. I am talking about real people. ALAC is me, you and everybody else interested in ICANN public matters. ALAC will be as strong as strong will be its members. Ok, Danny, fine. Then I ask ALAC office issue a suggestion reconsidering its final statement in favour of AGP elimination and open it for public deliberation? Please support the motion. Thanks Dominik -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 10, 2008 12:20 AM To: Dominik Filipp Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC Dominik, Re: "There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement it stands for and the board will vote." I think that you misunderstand the powers of the ALAC. While the ALAC as an advisory committee has a duty to investigate issues, to report its findings and to tender recommendations, its one and only "power" is the ability to ask a Supporting Organization to launch a PDP. Yes, the ALAC can issue Statements that haven't even been voted upon by ALAC members (such as the JPA statement and the Joint GNSO Improvements statement), but the Board is not required to respond to those Statements or to vote upon them. Usually, those Statements are simply ignored (for a variety of reasons). The Board has no bylaws-mandated obligation to respond to the ALAC; it must however (per the bylaws)respond to the GAC and must find a mutually acceptable solution on an issue should GAC and Board views diverge. The bylaws make it clear that the ALAC is the retarded sibling in the family that can only make suggestions to others as to the policy that should be followed, and the Supporting Organizations are at liberty to totally disregard that advice if they so choose. Accordingly, I see nothing wrong in the ALAC taking a firm position (as opposed to entering into compromise mode) if it decides to properly investigate an issue and tender findings/recommendations -- unfortunately, the ALAC has never once conducted a thorough investigation of anything (unlike the SSAC that takes its responsibilities just a tad more seriously). If you really want to help shape DNS policy by way of articulating firm positions, then either find yourself a home in one of the GNSO constituencies, or act in concert with others to launch a new constituency (in view of the possibilities afforded in the "revised" GNSO). That's where the real work will be getting done. Have a nice weekend, Danny ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ