Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny