Hi Cheryl, Apology accepted. I fully intend to put forward the views of ALAC, and not my own. To the extent that I can get the ALAC reasoning supporing those views, I can make a stronger case than if I'm simply left to rely on adherence to a joint statement. As is, I suspect my sole contribution to what may be a heated debate, will have to be "ALAC supports the joint user statement, specifically expressing concern that there be strong and equitable individual user representation in the GNSO." --Wendy Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:

Wendy,

With from the ridiculous number of glitches, technical issues and interventions / interruptions with the French Chanel interpreter last night I felt that the ALAC may perhaps not have yet made itself clear to you on what we desire to have you as Board Liaison impart to the Board regarding the status of ALAC support and endorsement for the Joint UC statement and the proposed tripartite model...

I apologise for the delay in sending this to you but it should arrive in time for you to read *before* the Board meeting and I am in a national conference yesterday and today (not able to connect other than in a break and this has been my first chance)...

If I understood and interpreted you correctly, then you may be planning to not simply forward in addition to our May ALAC statements/position pieces and further the argument for full,(and within the User Constituencies mix) an equitable part for Internet users, (including DNS Registrants and non registrants) i.e. the At-Large Community in a a redesigned GNSO structure, but perhaps to indicate that this overarching principle is a modification of / alteration to / or new view separate from, that which is outlined in the Joint UC Proposal... If am wrong or misinterpreting your intent here then I do most humbly apologise.

I therefore as Chair, write to you to state that, whilst your personal opinion will naturally be transmitted to the Board in your personal capacity the ALAC view is as we have recently described and reviewed at considerable length in several documents and messages. You are required to " to put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. (ROP 4.8) *and *"To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to [the Board]..." (ROP 5.7).

Any indication by you as an ALAC Liaison, that the Joint UC is not endorsed or that we have moved back from our position of support of its proposal on structure to the Board, would be a matter in our opinion of you 'not acting in the best interests of the ALAC'.

An example of a suitable and non personally compromising statement to the Board would be along the lines of what Vanda as ALAC Vice Chair, recently sent to The Board Chair in response to a question on this matter to the GNSO improvements BGC which I have copied below...

<snip>Para: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' Assunto: RES: Future Board discussion and resolution on the matter of GNSO Improvements - Specifically GNSO structure.

Peter, being with ALAC, I should not have other comments than ALAC's position already stated. Best, Vanda <end snip>

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/