Hi Luc, I'm OK with your suggestions. I believe that it's still an unwieldly mess but can work with is so long as it helps achieve consensus. If there are objections _despite_ your accommodations, then we'll know who wants to simply not let this happen. RALOs are advisory bodies which feed their input into a larger advisory body. Implicit in this is the understanding (which we as ALSs knew coming in) that ICANN is perfectly free to accept -- but not follow -- anything we reccommend. That's the role of advisors -- as opposed to directors. While I understand the frustration of those who have been around the process long enough to hate it, I have little patience for those who seek to change -- through the MOU -- the RALO into something it was not designed to be. Those who think the whole ALS/RALO concept is a sham may have a legitimate complaint, but this is the wrong forum in which to fight that particular battle. Having said that, I've quickly gained an appreciation of why many of these folks were ignored elsewhere. - Evan