Dear Vanda,

I totally concur with your proposal here. Sooner or later, the sooner the better, we must adress the inefficiency and dishonesty that lie behind your assessment here. First priority, of course, should accrue to decertification of ALS that have no record of participation whatsoever. Next of course is looking at realities like: does the organization actually exist? is it legally registered in the country (unless there are overwhelming reasons not to)? Does it operate internally? Does it hold meetings, online discussions, public events, policy interventions? In the case of institutions, like universities, is the participant effectively designated by the authorities of the instiution, or are we just dragging on inertially? does the institution even know it is represented, does it have a known policy position regarding the DNS, the domain-names market, IP addresses, Internet stabiity, openness and reliability, tradmearks, etc.? In cases of prolonged tenures, have there been considerations for replacement, generational transitions or accompaniment (we are talking 25 years already!), mentoring, tutoring, outreach towards a new generation? Interestingly, for universities, why is it they don't find a replacement or successor among their students and academics, in 20+ years which means at least 5 cycles of full classes? There may be legitimate answers but we need to be able to scrutinize them. The lack of transparency is not only tiresome, it opens the whole community to serious accusations. 

Every "no" answer reflects negatively on the whold even if the individual answers remain hidden from the Board and the public. 

Alejandro Pisanty