Questions for all Candidates:
1. How do you define "end-user," "consumer," "registrant," and where do those terms intersect?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
For a diagram of the intersection, see Sebastien's blog at: htttp://sebastien.bachollet.fr
Pierre Dandjinou
End users are those at the other side of the Internet dispensation: those who uses the internet for their daily life and therefore have to access services by investing in many ways on the devices (computers. laptops or mobile telephones) and access infrastructure (broadband, leased line, optic fiber,..).
The consumer is client to different actors of the Internet industry, be there carriers, isps or content providers.
The registrants are individual or corporate clients of a registrar who ‘owns’ domain names as one of the critical resources of the Internet.
Alan Greenberg
In the context of ICANN, I would say that an “end-user” is any person who uses the Internet.
A registrant is any person or entity that registers a domain name. Such names could be gTLDs which are registered under the auspices of ICANN, or those managed by other entities (ccTLDs, .edu, etc). For domains registered through privacy services, the service is technically the registrant, although it is common to talk about the originator of the request as a “registrant” as well.
“Consumer” is far more difficult to define in the context of ICANN. It might be someone who “buys” a domain name (although “buy” is a misnomer) – ie a registrant. Or it could be anyone who purchases any service with respect to Internet names and numbers which could include domain names, ISP services, web services, and so forth. Or it could be used for those who buy things over the Internet. Combinations of these could also fall under the general title of “consumer. And there are probably some other versions as well.
2. Describe your level of satisfaction with ICANN's current performance in responding to end-user and registrant concerns.
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Not happy.
Pierre Dandjinou
Not really satisfied!
Alan Greenberg
I believe that ICANN has not done nearly as good a job as it could have and should have. It seems to have gotten somewhat better recently, but only driven by situations that can only be described as scandalous (for a start, registrar failure after early warnings ignored, lack of compliance actions in a number of areas, contracts which do not even allow for incremental penalties and therefore have not been enforced at all).
Notwithstanding the inadequate staff action, the ACs and SOs have not adequately addressed these issues either. Again, that has slowly started, but there is still a general lack of enthusiasm for putting time and energy into these areas. I can speak with some personal interest on this, as the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP was initiated by the ALAC on my initiative, and I am now chairing the PDP WG which has been very poorly supported by both At-Large and the GNSO user constituencies.
3. Is the current speed of the new gTLD creation process happening too fast, too slow, or at the right pace?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Too slow for the development of the process.
Too fast for the proposed root introduction (not for technical reason but more for end-users acceptance).
Pierre Dandjinou
I think the process is moving at the right pace because there is a need to listen to all interested parties and consider their concerns. The business has its own preoccupations and issues such as competition maybe the norm there. But the end user needs to be protected and have a fair and affordable access to domain names as one of the critical resources of the Internet.
Alan Greenberg
I think that the current pace is probably about right. But that is a result of initially FAR underestimating the amount of preparatory work that was needed, with the resultant delays and need to address specific issues, each one working in crisis mode. Intellectual Property issues were arguably the worst – it required two consecutive crisis-mode interventions.
4. What is, in your opinion, the scope of ICANN? What are the limits of its authority?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Technical coordination body with policies associated and compliance tools.
Also to have a real and complete policy to outreach and inreach the various stakeholders but with a special emphasis on the non contracted parties.
Pierre Dandjinou
ICANN deals with coordination of the functioning of the Internet ; as such, it is responsible for the smooth operation of what has become a global common goods. The limits of ICANN authorities remain in the way it operates, through contracting with third parties on the one hand, and with the US government on the other side. ICANN is incorporated in California where it has to abide by Californian law on non for profit corporations; however, it also deals with various stakeholders that are scattered around the world; so, ICANN in the course of it activity, namely in policy development process should reconcile positions and views of all as well as cater for diverse languages. This may be time consuming and limit ICANN ‘s efficiency.
ICANN’s authority could be questionable at times because of the manner in which management of critical resources such as the root server, the DNS, and the IP addressing is done, whereby different institutions (IANA for instance) and supporting organizations (cctlds registries and Internet registries) acts on through contracts with ICANN
Alan Greenberg
The scope of ICANN is defined in its Articles of Incorporation (http://icann.org/en/general/articles.htm). Specifically:
In furtherance of the foregoing purposes, and in recognition of the fact that the Internet is an international network of networks, owned by no single nation, individual or organization, the Corporation shall […] pursue the charitable and public purposes of lessening the burdens of government and promoting the global public interest in the operational stability of the Internet by (i) coordinating the assignment of Internet technical parameters as needed to maintain universal connectivity on the Internet; (ii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet Protocol ("IP") address space; (iii) performing and overseeing functions related to the coordination of the Internet domain name system ("DNS"), including the development of policies for determining the circumstances under which new top-level domains are added to the DNS root system; (iv) overseeing operation of the authoritative Internet DNS root server system; and (v) engaging in any other related lawful activity in furtherance of items (i) through (iv).
That being said, there is the potential for a lot of discretion on just what “performing and overseeing” entails. Interpretations range from that of minimalists who say that if a function is not absolutely mandatory, then ICANN should not do it, to those that believe that virtually everything related to the Internet uses IP and DNS and is thus in ICANN’s purview.
I tend to come down somewhere in the middle. I believe that ICANN must not only do the bare minimum associated with the issues defined above, but has a responsibility to do it in a technically and socially responsible manner. So, for example, ICANN is not a law enforcement agency and has no power to pursue and punish someone who damages the operational characteristics of the Internet. But ICANN does have a responsibility to do things in such a way that considers the potential for wrong-doing and performs its duties so as to minimize (or perhaps just control) the vulnerability to such wrong-doing.
The limits of ICANN’s authority is a far more challenging question. ICANN has minimal authority to take action to enforce adherence to the standards and rules it creates. If a contract exists, it is potentially enforceable. ICANN has (almost) control over what is placed in the Root Servers. And implicit in this, ICANN has some ability to disconnect (logically, since ICANN has control of minimal physical infrastructure) parts of the Internet if doing otherwise would cause problems with the rest of the net. In most such cases, it is not really ICANN’s authority that allows this, but the desire of the major infrastructure providers (such as most of the Root Server operators) to adhere to ICANN standards or actions. Over and above that, ICANN’s “authority” comes from a desire by most of the world to enjoy a single, functioning Internet.
5. As a Director, what would be your interest in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
One subject among many other subjects. But an important one to protect, as much as possible, the end-users. And now with the VI decision, the needs for protection to the end-users are more important.
Pierre Dandjinou
The RAA is an agreement between ICANN and a registrar whereby all dispositions have been taken to ensure that rules and standards are abide by when operating a registry. As a Director, I would be much interested in the handling (exploitation and destination) of the ‘’TLD Zone-File Data" ie. all data contained in a DNS zone file for the registry, or for any subdomain for which Registry Services are provided and that contains Registered Names, as provided to nameservers on the Internet.
More particularly, I am interested in Public Access to Data on Registered Names. Of course, the RRA stipulates that ‘At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is accredited. It further on indicates that the data accessible shall consist of elements that are designated from time to time according to an ICANN adopted specification or policy.
In a nutshell, I will see to it that the end users, or the registrants are associated with the definition of policies related to their access to data on registered names.
Alan Greenberg
I would have great interest in the RAA. I believe that the original RAA was written in far too loose a manner. There are aspects that make its amendment very difficult and to date there has not been any effort to address this. As an example, the last negotiated change finally implemented in 2009 was very difficult to orchestrate because the agreement calls for GNSO approval of the changes, but does not allow for any GNSO involvement in establishing those changes, and the GNSO not surprisingly took a dim view of being asked to rubber-stamp the agreement.
Once this amendment was ultimately approved, it did not automatically come into force, but is being phased in over five years as contracts expire. Many registrars have adopted it early in exchange for a significant financial benefit, but for some, the registrants and ICANN compliance will not see the benefits for several more years.
The current Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP is trying to address a large number of items associated with the end-of-expiration processes, because the original RAA was silent on this and the last PDP in 2003 did not take sufficiently strong measures. In fairness to that group, following their work, registrars developed a number of innovative techniques to effectively bypass many of the new measures.
6. Describe, in as much detail as possible, your assessment of WHOIS, specifically stating your opinions on
- the desired balance between registrant privacy and registrant accountability
- the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose
- whether WHOIS needs to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
• It is a long (to long) standing issue even within At-Large
• There are a lot of new efforts going on
• Whois review team (with 2 persons supported by At-Large)
• GNSO working on additional studies
• Staff publishing new reports
• As for the other subjects I would like as much as possible to hear the voice(s) of At-Large/ALAC. Help to build an At-Large/ALAC position and present and support it to the Board.
Pierre Dandjinou
(Kindly see the response provided to this question during the At Large Community Forum)
Alan Greenberg
I think that “balance” is the key word here. Currently the WHOIS information is used for a variety of purposes, some legitimate, some not. As long as information is completely public, there is little that can be done to protect against improper use. Moreover, it is understood that partly because of the above problem (and for other reasons), a lot of the information within WHOIS is invalid.
Following an interminable and unsuccessful process to try to “fix” WHOIS, we are now in the midst of a study phase. There are a number of formal studies that are being undertaken under the auspices of the GNSO, and a Affirmation of Commitments Review Team is just starting.
I cannot say what the proper answer is, other than ultimately, we must address both privacy needs and the needs of law enforcement (and others) who are involved in the addressing the misuse of the Internet.. I would think that TELNIC solution of addressing natural persons (human beings) differently from legal persons (companies and other organizations) is at least a part of the solution. No doubt that technology and some level of privileged access will also play a large part.
Regarding the suitability of WHOIS to accomplish its intended purpose, the answer is mixed. It is used perhaps millions of times daily and it does address a need, although clearly sometimes the answers it yields are incorrect or misleading. But if it was completely satisfying the needs, we would not have spend a large part of the last decade trying to fix it. So the answer is mixed.
One area that is not currently addressed at all is the ability of WHOIS to accept multiple languages and scripts and allow that information to be retrieved in a meaningful way. The overall Internet is finally starting to address Unicode and IDN issues and WHOIS is lagging badly behind. Note that this does not just impact IDN domains, but any domain that is registered using some language/script other than English.
Does WHOIS need to be fixed, replaced, discarded or left untouched? Well, certainly not untouched! I will leave it to a more detailed analysis to address how to change it once we figure out what we want to do.
I would suggest, only half jokingly, that perhaps we need to change the name. WHOIS has such a bad reputation at the moment that no matter what we do, if we keep the same name, it will be somewhat tarnished.
7. What initiatives will you *personally* undertake to increase ICANN's transparency and accountability?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Try as much as possible to stay connected to ALSs, RALOS and ALAC.
Pierre Dandjinou
I should personally communicate with the community, and explain what the Board does; I will also work within the board special committee dealing with transparency and accountability. Finally, as a Board director, I will always urge the CEO to abide by the standard auditing processes.
Alan Greenberg
I certainly plan to personally be as open with the At-Large community (and everyone) as rules, process and time commitments allow. Over that, a single Director cannot unilaterally change how things are done. However the atmosphere is primed for change in this area (due to the AoC, the ATRT, and general unrest over the perceived lack of transparency and accountability), so as a Director, I plan to continue to identify areas where I think improvements are needed and work towards remedies.
8. Do end-users and registrants have rights within ICANN? Should they? If you answered yes to either, state how you would encourage the rest of the board to effect this.
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Yes
All the Board members will be (and I am sure there were) encouraged by the role more and more important taken by At-Large/ALAC to the policies processes. If I am elected to the Board by the At-Large I will use any opportunity to show/explain to the other board members the role taken by the ALSs, the RALOs and ALAC.
Pierre Dandjinou
Since end users and registrants are those who consume and pay for domain name services, they actually are the one building the resource base of the registries which ultimately provide resources to the ICANN. Thus, end users and registrants have rights within ICANN. The issue is how to best organize those end users and registrants so that they could know their rights, and stand up for them! The ALS is one conduit, but I believe one will need a more holistic and inclusive approach to this. I will encourage the rest of the Board to understand and buy into that belief by engaging in discussions and inviting them to meet members of the ALS in their respective regions.
Alan Greenberg
I am not a lawyer, and certainly not one with specific knowledge of the law in the jurisdictions where ICANN operates. I am also not quite sure what the phrase “rights within ICANN” means. All of that being said, I suspect that end-users and registrants have few DIRECT rights within the ICANN processes, other than to lodge complaints if applicable.
Should there be such rights? As it is not a subject that I have looked into in depth, I really don’t know the pros and cons. I know that the concept of third party beneficiary rights in various contracts have been suggested, and some people, particularly those from my neighbours to the south (the United States), have been particularly vocal about this. At this time, I am open to trying to understand more regarding what the issues are and to what extent such a contractual arrangement could be added to our existing agreements.
There is, however, an alternative way to view this question. That is, do registrants and end-users have rights THROUGH At-Large. Although these are not necessarily rights that could be exercised in a court of law, they are real. As At-Large learns to be more effective, these rights will take on more value. This is directly related to EURALO Question 1 on the relationship between the ALAC and the Board. As ALAC and At-large become more credible as a representative of the world’s users, their ability to affect outcomes will increase. As a Board member, I would take great pride in this and do what I could to make sure the change is recognized by the Board and the rest of ICANN.
9. As you replace the accountable At-Large liaison to the Board in a role that is explicitly not accountable, describe the relationship you intend to have with ICANN's At-Large Community.
- Are you prepared to make any commitments to levels of engagement with At-Large?
- Are you willing to resign if incapable of meeting those comittments?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Unfortunately the history shows that the accountability of the ALAC liaison to the Board was not always easy to fulfill.
I hope to be able to build in this new role a process to stay engage with At-Large.
In addition see the discussion of that in NARALO question N° 18).
Pierre Dandjinou
Yes, I will commit to an engagement with the At large community once elected on the Board, as I do believe seat 15 is a special one. I will strive to find ways and means for keeping in touch with community and engage in possible programmes. And, if I am incapable of meeting those commitment, I will consider my mission is not possible and draw my conclusion.
Alan Greenberg
The bulk of this question has already been addressed with respect to the AFRALO Question, the APRALO Questions 4 and 6 and EURALO Question 2 (and perhaps others).
Would I resign if I could not meet my commitments? I have a rather high standards regarding meeting my commitments. If I think that a breach is sufficiently severe that the proper remedy is to resign, I would certainly do so. I suspect that such a case would involve not being able to effectively function as a Director, and not just on the At-Large interactions.
10. How would you describe the "maturity" of ICANN's At-Large infrastructure?
- What is the effect of this on ICANN policy-making?
- What would you do to improve this?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Still need some more maturity from all the level of the structure (ALSs, RALOs, ALAC, staff…).
The review came too quickly after the start of the ALAC (not interim one). And we are still in work in progress to implement the recommendations.
We need more involvements from the edges and more possibilities to interact effectively at the regional and worldwide levels (RALO AGs, Summit…).
Pierre Dandjinou
I think that the ICANN At large structure has matured over the last years, and this is quite a progress; indeed, 10 years ago, it was not clear how the At Large system will evolve and some could not believe it.. The Als have now become a respected community through the quality of its contributions to policy making; we are now certain that from now on, ICANN will be expecting more involvement of the At Large Community in its policy development.
Of course, this can still be improved and as a Director, I certainly will persuade other colleagues of the importance of increasing resources allocated to the at large community so that it could contribute with well informed and solid pieces of advise. Facilities should be provided so that the cross-fertilization between the ALAC and other supporting organizations and advisory committees happens.
Alan Greenberg
I judge the At-large infrastructure as far more “mature” than a year or two ago (it only partially came into existence about 4 years ago). But it is still not great. We now have functioning RALOs in all five regions and all are reasonably active. We have nearly 130 ALSs impressively covering the globe (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/maps/combined).
It is unclear how many of these are active, and how many really involve their members in ICANN matters. There are indications that some do not, and others do so in a very significant way. We still have policy-related input from a relatively small number of edge-level participants, and that somehow needs to be addressed. The problem is that a lot of ICANN work is rather esoteric from the point of view of those on the edge, and even when not, it takes a lot of time and effort to get up to speed on things.
I think that the way to address it is through a number of initiatives:
- Education and publication of “dumbed-down” literature explaining what we do
- Once available, encouraging ALSs to use it
- Mentoring to get people who are interested up to speed
- Consideration of ways in which the At-Large organization can be changed, perhaps minor and perhaps major, to make it more effective.
As I said in an earlier question, ICANN cannot afford to not have At-Large work. We MUST make it effective. Some of this will need to be supported at the Board level, but the majority needs to be done within At-Large.
11. What is your analysis of the recent Board decision regarding vertical integration, specifically from the point of view of Internet registrants and end-users?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
No consensus policy (new tools needed to help that happen). Two completely opposed decision of the Board. I don’t know how to explain. See APRALO question N°5.
Pierre Dandjinou
The assumption is that this decision might not serve the interest of registrants and end users as they might not access the strings they would like, and they might have to pay more. I would recommend that the decision be revisited after an evaluation of the process after its first year of operation.
Alan Greenberg
This was already addressed in APRALO Question 5.
12. All three candidates have, at least once, been appointed to their At-Large positions rather than chosen by the community. How does this impact your view of ICANN and its relationship with the public?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
It will be the case for me after Cartagena.
I am sure it will not change my view of ICANN.
Pierre Dandjinou
At some point, ICANN tried a sort of democratic election for the at large position, but this could not continue due to technical issues as the online voting was not easy from many countries, mainly from developing economies. I think ICANN has come a long way in building a closer relationship to the public. The RALOs (regional At large Organizations) which have been established in the 5 ICANN regions are good example of a kind of interaction with the public at large. Of course more outreach is still needed and ICANN should commit more resources to that effect.
Alan Greenberg
I do not believe that it affects my views at all. In the past, it has definitely impacted how I am perceived by others. There were some rough times where NomCom appointees have been viewed very much as second-class citizens within the ALAC and within the GNSO – that those who represent REAL organizations have far more credibility and import. However, In my case at least, I believe that my actions, words and track record has convinced people that I can contribute and represent the needs of users at least as well as those appointed by RALOs.
13. What is the best possible outcome of this election process? What is the worst possible outcome?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
A better recognition of At-Large / ALAC inputs and works.
That the Director is an alibi.
Pierre Dandjinou
Well, I would say that the best possible outcome should be that whoever gets seat 15 be able to bring the skills needed for a more effective and efficient Board.
Alan Greenberg
The best possible outcome would be that At-Large put onto the Board someone who:
- quickly earns the respect of the other Board members and of the rest of ICANN;
- is recognized as someone who should be listened to within Board discussions, not because the others will all agree with what is said, but because the person is judged as being thoughtful and having insight;
- builds rapport and alliances with other Board members, since it is through such groupings that it is possible to move the Board in directions it might not otherwise go;
- within some reasonable time, starts to get increasing responsibility within the Board and Board committees;
- develops good ongoing relationships with At-Large leaders;
- in summary convinces the community and particularly the rest of the Board that it was a good idea to create this new voting Board position and that it adds value to the Board in particular and to ICANN as a whole.
The worst possible outcome is pretty much the opposite:
- the rest of the Board is not particularly impressed with the new Director, or worse finds things they do not like
- as a result, the new Director tends to be ignored
- there is a view within the Board that the new Director does not really add a lot to Board, which translates to a feeling that the change was not warranted.
- the person proves ineffective in impacting Board directions.
14. Do you consider yourself a "people person"? In other words, do you like people and do you make yourself available because you enjoy spending time listening to people's ideas and concerns?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
Yes and it is one of the reason for me to travel.
Pierre Dandjinou
Yes..I live in a developing countries and solidarity is one of the keyword there. I have also traveled extensively around the world and understand that people matter! Thus, I am always keen on listening to people and interacting with them!
Alan Greenberg
I tend to have a hard time in situations where I am not known or at all integrated. Just approaching someone and striking up a conversation is not my strength. I tend to have no such problems if I am the one approached. Once I am involved in a conversation or in environments where I feel more comfortable, I change into very much of a people-person.
15. How many hours of a time commitment per week do you expect will be needed of you as an ICANN Board of Director? Can you dedicate more than that?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
It seems to be half time. It is OK and if more needed I will do my best.
I hope that At-Large / ALAC will be able to help in that perspective.
Pierre Dandjinou
Well, I have now resigned from the UN as I took an early retirement, and can now devote more time to community work! Thus, I think I could devote between 7 and 10 hours per week to ICANN as a Board member. Should the need be expressed, I could devote more time.
Alan Greenberg
The estimates seem to be about 20-24 hours per week. That is less than I typically put into ICANN now. As I am semi-retired and have full control over my other commitments, I will structure them to make sure that ICANN is not neglected.
16. Are you a founder, officer, leader or executive management of an organization planning to submit a new TLD application to ICANN? And if so, how does that affect your ability to represent end-users at the Board?
Answers from Candidates (in order of the candidates' surname)
Sebastien Bachollet
See my answer to “Questions to specific candidates prepared by Adam Peake on behalf of EURALO”
Pierre Dandjinou
I am not a founder, nor an officer or leader or executive management of any organization planning to submit to a new TLD application to ICANN. However, as one of the pioneers of internet connectivity in Africa, I was recently appointed as one of the Advisors to the African Union Commission (AUC) on the dot Africa domain; my role is specifically on advising the continental organization on how best to organize the management of the dot Africa registry. Indeed while the AUC intends to be a warrant of the operation of the registry on behalf of the African community, it is not supposed to run the registry; it therefore is planning to select a partner after an application process open to all Africa based companies.
That said, I have no personal interest in the dot Africa process and have always been involved as a volunteer and providing my knowledge and skills to the community. Of course, should this become an impediment to my seating on the Board, I will resign from the Advisory position offered by the AUC.
Alan Greenberg
As answered to the EURALO question from Adam Peake, I have no such connections and I am not connected with any new gTLD initiative in a paid or unpaid capacity.
Questions to specific candidates:
Question for Pierre:
17. Some longtime participants in At-Large have expressed concern about your level of participation and achievement during your tenure on the Interim ALAC. Can you please describe some specific initiatives in which you had leadership or significant participation while on ALAC?
Answers from Candidate
Pierre Dandjinou
I am really sorry if certain of my former colleagues could not perceive my level of participation and achievement. But I think others were able to do so, as some of them actually encouraged me to stand for the Board. I believe we should put things into their real perspective. The Interim ALAC was an experiment and the end result was not certain as we had to demonstrate that having the end user represented within ICANN gives the latter some legitimacy. Thus, we had to work inside the ICANN to persuade that the experiment is worthwhile, and also do the necessary outreach outside ICANN so that the existence of the At large Structures (ALS) of the ALAC becomes a reality.
I think I provided my worth of advice on many issues including budgeting for the ALAC participation to ICANN’s activities, creating scholarships to facilitate participation and contribution of at large members to ICANN meetings..Due to my commitments with the UN and on the Africa front, I did not opt for serving as chairperson or rapporteur to the ALAC, but make sure I was present at our monthy teleconferences. I also did substantive outreach across Africa and managed to have many countries establish their local ALS. I believe this was why my colleagues deemed necessary to appoint me as the first ever Chairperson of AFRALO, the African at large organizations.
Question for Sébastien:
18. If selected as Director, will you resign your NomComm seat on ALAC or retain it?
Answers from Candidate
Sebastien Bachollet
I have two minds here:
In conjunction with Q15 above and to allow more people to be involved I am tempted to resign,
In the other hand, as ALAC is losing the liaison it maybe of the interest of the community to stay.
I would like very much to hear from the community to make a final decision.
