All, Rob Beckstrom's note of January 31st identified a rather limited set of issues in which ICANN's CEO took note, namely the expiry of a zone some 140 days in the future. The ALAC statement following also identified a rather limited set of issues in which the ALAC were willing to find an ICANN interest. I share neither of those views, and wrote both sets of actors at the time, to no observable persuasive effect, and continue to think the correct course of action is to document the mechanisms employed, and encourage those who tolerate rate limiting, incoherence, and ultimately partition to reconsider their respective roles in the institution presently entrusted with the technical coordination of unique identifiers. The GAC model does lack a means for some application for "tibet" to arrive at an outcome other than non-delegated due to the opposition by a nation state. However, it [some role for government advice and consent] has managed to produce a delegated solution for Palestine, and for Catalan or Catalonia. The Board model has not produced delegations since 2004, which affects a larger class of applications. Eric