NOTE: This is a draft, produced as a result of interest expressed in my earlier query of this list. Even though it says "reached by consensus", that of course will not be the case if we do not reach consensus. Please -- SOON -- offer changes of any kind as well as any other comments. If at least rough consensus is possible, I would like to have a final version ready for presentation by Saturday night. If it sounds to strong, or not strong enough, or you just don't like the tone, etc. please suggest changes. - Evan --------------------------------------------------------- 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. The ALAC Review process has been flawed from the initial choice of review consultants, which we believe may have adversely affected the independence of the review itself. Such suspicions appear to be warranted by the complete lack of consideration of the needs of At-Large in the reviewers' draft recommendations. 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. Indeed, most of the report's recommendations appear designed to deny the vision ICANN originally had for At-Large, to reduce the influence of At-Large within ICANN, to reduce transparency, and to obstruct community outreach. The review fails totally to address the fact that ICANN's relationship with At-Large is bi-directional. 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.