[T]he existence of an effectively functioning ALAC [At Large Advisory Committee] might eventually eliminate or significantly reduce the need for and utility of a General Assembly. In our view, an effective ALAC would operate properly moderated mailing lists and the like, thus allowing wide-ranging public discussion of ICANN-related issues. Given this, there may be no need for a separate General Assembly.

We do not believe that it makes much sense to reserve the GA to cross-constituency dialogue, and leave the dialogue with the public to some other, unspecified mechanism. The cost of that approach may quite easily outweigh the benefit. What the GA needs is not less participation from the outside, but more participation from the inside.

Since it will be some time, even if our recommendation to create it is accepted by the Board in Shanghai, before it is clear that the ALAC can in fact carry out this role, our current thinking is that the GNSO Council should maintain the operation of the current General Assembly discussion lists until such time as the ALAC has shown it can take over that responsibility, and at that time the responsibility for a general public discussion list on ICANN issues should be transferred to the ALAC. If this approach were followed, it would be unnecessary that there be such a thing as a General Assembly Chair. Of course, under this approach, the GNSO Council should have the power to designate the General Assembly list managers/moderators for the time it remains responsible for that list, and after that the ALAC would have this responsibility.

It isn't clear why Roessler would endorse this approach. We could have asked him, but given that in the past he has denounced this ICANN Watch editor for his "damned lies" and "newly improved skills in lying by omission," we thought it best to let him explain his own rationale -- in full.