Vittorio and all stakeholders or other interested parties and members,
As was evident in the ALSC this report seems in it's structure
to simply regurgitate that committees findings or recommendations
in this effort. Such was soundly trounced and denounced by
the vast majority of participants in the ALSC.
One of the main problems here is that the recommendation
for this structure ( A near carbon copy of the old ALSC's )
is that the so called "ICANN Region's definitions were flawed
long ago and never corrected to this day. Hence the idea
of a new @Large structure as this report states below,
using those same flawed ICANN Regions in "Regional
At-Large Organizations" is only propagating such flawed
regional definitions. Rather a country wide or voluntary
country based structure would be more appropriate and
would better represent potential @large members...
Vittorio Bertola wrote:
(Part 2)
-----
Structure
The Assistance Group recommends that an ALAC be established as a
standing advisory committee of the Board with 15 members to provide
advice to the Board and other policy-making and advisory organizations
within ICANN on the needs of, and the impact of proposed policies on,
the Internet's individual users. As noted above, we suggest that the
ALAC - via its liaisons - also participate in some of these
organizations, rather than merely give advice.