Evan,
The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure.
This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely separate the two.
Can you clairify what they meant?
Since this is was the report to the Board of a discussion that happened at the BGC, I might have first hand information. The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role. Of course, if the approach to AtLarge changes, this change will affect the way this question is answered. But we should not encourage the contractor to start from scratch. Maybe a good example can be the parallel discussion we had a couple of months ago about the review of the RSSAC: it was pointed out, discussed, and accepted, that the scope of the review is the functioning of the Root Server System Advisory *Committee*, not the Root Server System in itself. In simple words, the RSSAC review should not discuss improvement of the root server system in itself, but assess the performance of the committee. Same thing for ALAC: the focus is on how the Committee functions, given the current AtLarge environment and policy. Since I am at it, I would like to comment also on another item.
With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance.
Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections.
To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement as it has currently been negotiated.
I was extremely embarassed in reporting on the status of the GNSO Review. On one hand, there was a fact , that ALAC signed the document proposed by Philip Sheppard, but on the other hand, another fact, that the position of the ALAC had been questioned in discussions in the list. So, I made both facts known to the Board, but my recommendation would be to have a consensus ALAC position, even if the comment period is over, for documenting exactly what ALAC wants. Cheers, Roberto