I have received one comment suggesting related to the allocation of
Council seats among Constituencies. Specifically, if the number of
seats allow, each Constituency should receive at least one seat. I
support this and will incorporate it into the document.

Only a few hours left for comments.

Alan

At 25/09/2008 05:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>Attached is a draft of the reply to the Sept. 19 questions on GNSO
>restructuring. The are based on my thoughts sent out the same day.
>Sebastian was the only person to comment, and the present document
>incorporates most of his comments.
>
>The official deadline is TOMORROW, Friday, Sept 26.
>
>Any comments should be made quickly.
>
>Alan

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

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

And it is an issue that I suspect the two of us will have a number of
spirited debates over during the coming years. ;-)

Alan

At 25/09/2008 05:17 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote:
>This is probably more an observation than something that would
>pertain to the document, but, you wrote:
>
>"I note that most ALSs existed before they joined At-Large - they
>have lives and interests of their own which may or may not coincide
>with multiple ICANN outreach directions. Once can easily imagine a
>community-owned wireless network becoming an ALS and a member of the
>ISP or Registrar Constituencies."
>
>I would argue that the ALAC should not admit ALSs into ALAC if they
>are members of other constituencies whose interests often represent
>a conflict of interest to that of users, i.e., registrars.
>________________________________________
>From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>[alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
>[alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
>Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:09 PM
>To: ALAC Working List
>Subject: [ALAC] Draft Answers to Sept. 19 GNSO questions.
>
>Attached is a draft of the reply to the Sept. 19 questions on GNSO
>restructuring. The are based on my thoughts sent out the same day.
>Sebastian was the only person to comment, and the present document
>incorporates most of his comments.
>
>The official deadline is TOMORROW, Friday, Sept 26.
>
>Any comments should be made quickly.
>
>Alan
>
>***
>Scanned
>
>**
>This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s)
>named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any
>attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are
>not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy,
>redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose,
>or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received
>this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
>e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from
>your computer system.

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

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

This is probably more an observation than something that would pertain to the document, but, you wrote:

"I note that most ALSs existed before they joined At-Large - they have lives and interests of their own which may or may not coincide with multiple ICANN outreach directions. Once can easily imagine a community-owned wireless network becoming an ALS and a member of the ISP or Registrar Constituencies."

I would argue that the ALAC should not admit ALSs into ALAC if they are members of other constituencies whose interests often represent a conflict of interest to that of users, i.e., registrars.
________________________________________
From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 5:09 PM
To: ALAC Working List
Subject: [ALAC] Draft Answers to Sept. 19 GNSO questions.

Attached is a draft of the reply to the Sept. 19 questions on GNSO
restructuring. The are based on my thoughts sent out the same day.
Sebastian was the only person to comment, and the present document
incorporates most of his comments.

The official deadline is TOMORROW, Friday, Sept 26.

Any comments should be made quickly.

Alan

***
Scanned

**
This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

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

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac