Cheryl, I continue to marvel at the ALAC's persistent inability to produce a public comment within the designated time frame. 45 days seem to be sufficient for the rest of the entire world (even for other non-commercial orgs) yet somehow it's never enough time for your Committee. If it weren't for the time extension granted today, the ALAC once more would have had no timely submission. Indicating that you will formalize an ad-hoc committee on the date that the comment period was scheduled to expire is certainly not an inspirational thought that engenders confidence in the feedback loop process that you are managing.. We both know the reality of the ALAC situation. You're chairing a hive with a deficiency of worker bees, and you rely on the North Americans far too often because most of the other regions never seem to have a thing to say. Just look at your own ALAC discussion list. Where is the discussion? It's almost non-existent. Where are the plans to fix the problems that are impacting the user community? They're certainly not being discussed on any of your lists. This is a leadership and management issue. Here's a thought: If folks like Vittorio can manage to get their comments into the public forum on time, then so too can each of your Committee members submit their own personal views in a timely fashion. Anything would be better than waiting for the always overdue ALAC statement that pretends that Committee members have actually engaged in discussion of a topic. As it see it, your Committee is filled with a bunch of duds (many appointed by the NomComm) that bring little added value into the process. You need to have a word with the Nominating Committee so that the ALAC doesn't continue to wind up getting the cream of the crap instead of the cream of the crop. You need Committee members with the ability to manage a sustained on-line discussion and debate. Currently you rely far too much on your Monthly meeting structure wherein very little gets done with almost nothing getting done on-line between meetings. You could do yourself a big favor by placing a moratorium on all ALAC teleconferences for the next three months (forcing your members to necessarily use email to express their views and to communicate with each other). But enough of this... let's talk about about new gTLD policy. I don't have a comfort level with rushing into new TLDs when ICANN's house isn't in order. The compliance tools and manpower are not in place (RAA revisions are not complete and ICANN hasn't demonstrated the capacity to enforce contract compliance with what may be 500 new contracting parties). Further, we have major issues (such as domain name warehousing) that still haven't been addressed. How can we rush to expand the marketplace before having effective and meaningful tools to protect consumers and brand owners? Even though measures are in place to deal with domain tasting, we still have registrars actively engaged in the process with one registrar in particular (NameKing) still burning through a million grace period deletes over the course of a month. Additionally we will need to discuss the disposition of excess revenue from the monies raised in the new gTLD process given ICANN's status as a nonprofit, and given their inability to honor their own word -- perhaps you will recall that we were promised in the .net contract "a special restricted fund for developing country Internet communities to enable further participation in the ICANN mission by developing country stakeholders". ICANN has a way of making promises and then failing to live up to them (especially when it comes to the user community). As I see it, if it's possible to create namespaces for uninhabited territories (such as .aq for Antarctica) then we certainly can create namespaces for indigenous peoples and developing communities, as well as for communities in danger of losing their languages and/or cultures (along the lines of what was done via .CAT). And it shouldn't cost them $185,000 for an "evaluation" plus $75,000 per annum thereafter. If some University can manage to run a small ccTLD with minimal investment on behalf of some community, then why can't we have ICANN allow the same for a small gTLD community without all these insane and needless costs? That's all for now. I look forward to hearing your views on the topic, and maybe you can convince a few others on your Committee to express themselves...