*From:* Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> *Date:* April 23, 2011 7:34:31 AM PDT *To:* "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* *Re: NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 26* Hello all, My two cents worth on the RAA statement. It seems a little one-sided and demanding. I don't think it does the ALAC any good to 'pick sides' in another SO's dispute. As such, It would have far greater impact if you acknowledged the statement put out by the Contracted House, and then explained why, in the ALAC's view, this was not sufficient to pull away from allowing other stakeholders to view the process. You could even try to act as peacemaker and suggest to the Board that both sides find a mutually agreeable observer - who could be from anywhere in the community (ALAC?). The last thing I'd note is that the statement doesn't really explain why individual Internet users are impacted by this. The average Internet Joe doesn't care about the multistakeholder model - but he does care about the rules surrounding domain names. I think the statement would be much stronger if it was clearer why the ALAC was sticking its oar in- because this has an impact far beyond the GNSO Council. Hope this is helpful, Kieren [from mobile device]