It appears that the Ombudsman's "report" has been posted publicly. Here is my personal response: The Ombudsman is quick to extol the virtues of Ombudsmanship (Report, p.15), but slow to put them into practice. He praises the flexibility and equitable alternatives open to an ombudsman, as distinct from a court of law, then treats the At-Large Advisory Committee like the hostile target of a grand jury investigation with no opportunity to respond. Using selective quotation from interim drafts circulated on internal lists, he paints a skewed picture of the Committee's processes and conclusions, and therefore misses some of the key facts in the dispute. The Committee does not deny responsibility for some delays. At the same time, the Committee was often barred from more rapid response by its ICANN-appointed staff, who unilaterally blocked Committee publication of vote results and then sent notifications to applicants without offering the Committee any opportunity to review or correct them. There are indeed problems to be addressed in the ALAC's functions, many of them deep structural problems in ICANN's construction of the ALAC, but the Ombudsman's determination that the Committee must be publicly shamed unfortunately misses the opportunity to make progress in resolving any of them. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/