[S1]Yaovi Atohoun’s comment:  suggest that at this stage we keep all the terms that have definitions in the current RoP and we mention in the comment column that it may be removed .  This decision will be based on what we have as final content of the new RoP. I agree with the definition  (ICANN  annual general meeting  found in ICANN below in section 8.1.h ) . Annual meeting  (section 13 in ICANN bylaws) is the term most used in ICANN bylaws. I

I would suggest:

Option 1: in ALAC RoP we use IAGM (ICANN Annual General Meeting) if we think that ALAC as an advisory committee may have also an AGM.

Option 2: We use "ICANN AGM" instead of "AGM" in ALAC RoP

 [S2]Rinalia Abdul Rahim’s Comment:

The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is defined in the ICANN Bylaws (Article XI, Section 2, Part 4) as "...the primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users.  The role of the ALAC shall be to consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN, insofar as they relate to the interests of individual Internet users. This includes policies created through ICANN's Supporting Organizations, as well as the many other issues for which community input and advice is appropriate. The ALAC, which plays an important role in ICANN's accountability mechanisms, also coordinates some of ICANN's outreach to individual Internet users."

Comments/Questions: 

1. Is there value in being referred to as the "primary organizational home within ICANN for individual Internet users"? 
2. Is the purpose of making this distinction to separate the ALAC from entities within the non-commercial stakeholder groups in the GNSO?

Contrast this with the definition of the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as a body that considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues.

A parallel to this GAC definition for the ALAC could be (based on edited extracted wording from the Bylaws):

(Option 1) The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is a body that considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN that relates to the interests of individual Internet users.

(Option 2) The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is a body that considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN that relates to the interests of individual Internet users, which includes all ICANN policies and issues requiring community input and advice.

Darlene Thompson's Response:

I believe that there is value to this statement.  The GAC does not consult with individuals or grass roots organizations.  Because they are government, they think that they know what is best for their people without any/much consultation whatsoever.  Due to the way that At-Large is structured, we can reach many more individuals and grass roots organizations than government would even try to do.  As for your second point, yes, I think that was the purpose when that wording was added quite some time ago.  Either way, as this is in the ICANN By-Laws, I believe it is beyond the remit of this group to change.

Rinalia Abdul Rahim's Reply:

Hi, Darlene.  Thank you for providing the answer to my second question.

For the Group - An explanation on my posting:

1. The Bylaws' definition is provided as is for the use of the DSDT (I am aware that changing the ICANN bylaws is not in our remit - at least at this point in time ' alt="(smile)" class="emoticon emoticon-smile" data-emoticon-name=smile v:shapes="_x0000_i1025"> )
2. The questions/comments are posed so that the answers can help new ALAC members understand the context of why certain things are the way they are or phrased in a particular way.
3. The options in terms of simplified definition of the ALAC, which is consistent with the Bylaws, is provided to fuel thought.  There are many ALAC working documents that require a description of the ALAC in brief and simple terms and sometimes the full definition of the ALAC (as per the Bylaws) may not be useful or effective for communication purposes (Yes, not exactly the remit of the definitions work either, but still worth flagging in my opinion for the record). 

 [S3]Holly’s Comment: Suggests the merging of ALS and RALO

 [S4]Holly’s Comment: Suggests deletion of motion. Delete definition  (if we are to keep this document simple, we do not need a definition.  If anything, the only provision that would make sense is to state the obvious rule that anyone who is a member of the ALAC may propose a Motion) 

 [S5]Rudi Vansnick’s Comment:

I would suggest to make a distinction between Member and Delegate. If I'm not wrong, all ALSes are member of the At-Large Advisory Committee, while the Delegate is an elected member with voting rights in the At-Large Advisory Committee. A member in this case must be seen as an organisation representing a group of people, while an individual from within an organisation will be chosen as a Delegate to the ALAC.This would, I think, help outsiders to better understand the differences and allow them to see how the membership of ALAC is composed.

Holly’s Comment: Suggest deletion of Delegate. Member of the At-Large Advisory Committee – delete definition. We do not need a separate term for individuals who may participate in an ALAC meeting but are not an ALAC Member

 [S6]Holly’s Comment: Member of the At-Large Advisory Committee either selected by a RALO or by the NomCom

 [S7]Holly’s Comment: Suggests the merging of ALS andRALO

 [S8]Alan Greenberg advised via his review that the term was scrapped by the ALAC.

Holly’s Comment: delete definition

Sala’s Response: We have to submit everything we see within the existing definitions as is. This will be scrapped however. Think about how this affects the Special Rapporteur within the existing RoP. Unless the decision was also to scrap the Special Rapporteur.

 [S9]Holly’s Comment: Suggests the deletion of the word Resolution

 [S10]Alejandro Pisanty’s comment:

How close can we get to an IETF "hum" in defining rough consensus? How does it work online and offline? 

When is the timestamp applied to a "rough consensus" decision? Face-to-face meeting or electronic - email, forum, etc.?

Holly’s Comment: The definition of rough consensus is both too wordy and unhelpful. Shorten to be 'the dominant view of the group, as determined by the Chair'

Sandra: I made an "review" on the GNSO, just copy pasted from http://gnso.icann.org/en/about , which I think made GNSO very clear. If this finds approval, I propose to do it the same way for other groups.