JFC and all, Interesting response JFC. My remarks and response interspersed below. -----Original Message-----

From: JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> Sent: May 7, 2008 5:47 PM To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org>, 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan@telly.org>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy@seltzer.com> Cc: 'At-Large' <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting

At 01:26 08/05/2008, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

...

The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role.

One of our members suggested on this list there is a need to carry a survey on the ALSes. What they really are. How they view themselves, what they expect from ICANN and are ready to retrofit.

We started discussing this a little bit. Two ideas emerged quickly: Who's we? Got a mouse in your pocket. I've seen very little emerging ideas, but alot or non-releated prognosticating.

(1) to try to identify if they are ultimately interested in controlling the ALAC, benefiting from ICANN, or making the Internet work through ICANN. This has a real impact on the way they can organise, be motivated, and be of use. However, to have a full picture, one also needs to know what ICANN plans regarding the other fora our members attend ...

You JFC know and have known that ICANN should be predominantly at the service and "Controled" by the users and registrants as it is these two constituencies that are largely unrepresenteded that pay for ICANN's existance and it's bills. However I recognize fully you amongst a very few others dislike the idea that users and registrants should be driving ICANN policy if not predominantly determining what those policies should be and currently are not. Certainly you JFC amongst a few others have been seeking financial supprot from ICANN so that ALS'es such as Franceatlarge can be funded and additionally that travel expenses for ALS representatives , very loosly stated or recognized ligitimately > also be funded from ICANN's wallet. Frankly to expect such is unreasonable, not ethical, and places any ALS'es members at the whim of ICANN itself, leaving ALS members without a stronge position by which to advocate policy initiatives or address issues from a position of strength.

(2) there should be a very simple rated questionnaire ALS should answer every months to report their informed opinion on ICANN issues. With a possibility to add comments. This would permit to obtain users tendencies. Documented reports by mails are inadequate for trend analysis and are too complex to spot, work on, write in English, etc.

I seen no good reason for a monthly report as issues can be introduced here or on ALS forums.

jfc

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827