It is worth reminding at this time that At-Large does **NOT** have Board representation within ICANN. Never did.

ALAC gets to send someone. Once that person is seated, they are sworn by ICANN's lawyers to explicitly disavow representing the constituency that sent them, and to only consider the interests of ICANN-the-entity.

I refer you to this slide presentation, and specifically slide #9. Could not possibly be more clear.

In other words, I would most definitely not want public-interest representation in any future Internet governance body, multilateral or multistakeholder or multi-anything, to resemble the crippled At-Large voice within ICANN.

This is not a feature worth boasting about.

Cheers,

Evan