Hello again, Thanks to everyone for their comments. What I have gathered so far is that: - The concerns about Westlake's appointments, which genuine and possibly very serious, should not form a significant part of this statement (if indeed, any statement is made). This is certainly something to bring up when talking to the governance committee that handled the procurement of the consultant, however stressing it in this statement detracts from the more fundamental problems that exist in the review report itself. - People are generally in agreement with the comments in the statement, however there are two concerns: 1) it's too negative and does not provide constructive alternatives 2) a strong negative statement may anger people and jeopardize Board support of the Summit. My answer to these is to note the intended audience of this statement, which is ALAC and not the rest of ICANN. Its purpose of this statement is to prod ALAC, and its other regions, into action. If ALAC does not act NARALO can choose to do so, but the result if that happens will be certainly worded differently as it would be targeted at a different audience. It would also take place after the Paris meeting, and if the ICANN Board approves the Summit this week then the two issues cannot be linked. I can change wording so to indicate that work on constructive and creative recommendations must eventually accompany a rejection of the Westlake recommendations. Furthermore, the Summit is a very different issue from the ALAC review; if the Board links the two, that will ICANN's loss. With all this in mind, I have attempted a second draft: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NARALO, by consensus agreement, urges ALAC to take every measure possible to encourage rejection of the report of the 2008 ALAC review by the ICANN board and other members of the ICANN community. We believe that the ALAC Review process has been flawed from the very start of its process, and has produced recommendations which serve neither the multi-stakeholder goals of ICANN nor the needs of its at-large community. While the report indicates we were heard, we were clearly not listened to. The logic behind the recommendation to deny At-Large voting membership on the ICANN Board is puzzling; even in its best possible interpretation the rationale emphasizes rigidity over good and responsible governance. Not only do the ALAC review recommendations fail to progress the needs of ICANN's At-Large community, they take a significant step backwards by requesting that an even larger proportion of ALAC than currently exists be composed of unaccountable, non-representative appointees of the Nominating Committee. The result is a real and visible reduction of the voice of the community for whom ALAC is supposed to speak, opposing the recommendations of the Nominating Committee's own review. In rejecting the consultants' report, ALAC must offer creative and viable alternative recommendations which would increase accountability. while enhancing the bi-directional communications required between ICANN and its global grassroots communuty. What is at issue is not only what the community must offer to ICANN, but also what ICANN _owes_ to the community of Internet users who have neither financial nor academic interest in Internet operation. For these reasons, we call upon ALAC and other members of the ICANN community to challenge the recommendations of the current ALAC review, as well as the very frames of reference upon which they were constructed. We believe that such actions are required for the betterment of ICANN's public constituency. This statement was reached by consensus of NARALO members on June 20, 2008 after efforts to solicit opinion from its organizational and individual members.