All, I just got back from a few days offline, and I did not expect to find such a complex situation again :) I must say that I am concerned by the fact that often, once we agree on processes or documents, after a while people start to complain about having changed their mind, or that they weren't really reading what they were signing, and so on. It's a bit difficult to go anywhere that way. Now, for the sake of keeping the pieces together, I am willing to go over the fact that some nominations were made after the deadline (whichever of the many deadlines one wanted to pick), or about the other debatable points, though that requires everyone's good will, and I'm not sure what happened if anyone went to ICANN and complained about the formal irregularities, or whether ICANN is willing to live with them. About the nominations for the ALAC, I do not see much desire to come to agreement so I guess that we will have to vote. Specifically, I have no problems with Veronica not being an ALS member (as long as we can get away with it with ICANN) or not being experienced, but I have a problem with appointing someone whom I basically don't know, who has not been active in the EURALO process up to now, and who is not even advocating for herself on this list. I would like to see a discussion in first person among the three candidates, also in terms of programs and objectives, so that I can have something to report to my ALS when we'll have to decide who to vote for. For what regards the EURALO Board, I think that we now have too many nominations, and not very well balanced in terms of reflecting the diversity in the constituency (eg geography, ISOC folks vs WSIS folks, ALS vs individuals etc). I would suggest that we pick a reasonable size for the Board - I'd suggest seven - and vote for the Board as well. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------