I am replying purely to the At-Large list, because I presume that anyone on the ALAC list is also here. A few comments are embedded below. Alan At 29/07/2008 12:47 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:

If I had to make the decision,

This is the line that captures the entire issue over the last months. It is easy for anyone person to make a reasoned and informed decision in support of what he/she believes is in the best interests of ICANN. It is an awful lot more difficult to find a solution that all parties can live with, and certainly impossible to find a solution that all parties feel is optimal.

I would have to endorse the Avri Doria's statement. The bicameral council idea is some neat footworks but I cannot find anywhere reference to a "conference committee" that would be necessary to "iron out" differences that would (shall?) emerge from both houses in order to report a "consensus" position to the ICANN Board. So the complexity imposed doesn't appear to get you further along the path to consensus in a shorter time!

Not sure what "conference committee" you are referring to. There are indeed some issues to be addressed in the proposals sent to the Board, but (in my mind), they are likely fixable.

A question as to rationale. As I understand it, a call for an Issues Report is the pre-requisite to the PDP. Why then would (or should?) the voting threshold requirements be different?

I don't really understand the question. An issues report is the first step on a GNSO PDP. You ask why should/would the voting thresholds be different. Different from what?

The statements of the Registry & NCUC representatives certainly peaked my interest. They seem more about personal animus than not.

The 10 or so hours of conference calls and 550 e-mail messages should be online soon. With sufficient spare time, you can judge for yourself. ;-)

Carlton

-----Original Message----- From: alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 12:06 AM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'ALAC internal list' Subject: [ALAC-Internal] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on GNSO Council Restructuring

At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter.

Please see our Wiki page https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board.

ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain.

More in the next 24hrs.

CLO

_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists. icann.org

ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

_______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists....

ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org