[ALAC] ALAC & At-Large involvement in GNSO activities

[Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond]

Dear Rinalia,

thank you for your kind message and for sharing your views. I would like
to focus specifically on the points you have developed:

On 09/02/2013 07:16, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> With expanding scope, a team of people with the right blend of skill,
> interest and dedication could be a solution.  The crux of the matter is the
> sustainability of the volunteer model itself, and I think that the ALAC
> needs to ponder this issue carefully because demand will always exceed
> supply where ICANN is concerned.
>
> If we have limited capacity and the issue space keeps expanding and the
> wider At-Large community is unable to help us pick up the slack, then the
> rational solution is to be selective, which means that we have to
> prioritize the issues that we address.  And in this regard, I tend to agree
> with Jean-Jacques that we should focus on principles and issues with big
> picture implication in terms of the global public interest.

On issues of the sustainability of the volunteer model itself, I would
indeed be interested in hearing views. Demand has *always* outstripped
supply. We have therefore already been conducting a selection in the
number of public comments we respond to. The alternative is to push for
more volunteer involvement from ALAC members or to expand the community
itself thus having more capacity to distribute tasks to more people.
Alan has let us know there is likely to be *more* demand. He has also
let us know that rather than being reactive and commenting on GNSO
processes once the work has finished, our community is increasingly
being invited to take part in the working group itself - something we
have asked for in many of our statements in the past, so our demand is
being granted.
I therefore only see one solution to our dilemma: growth of our active
community.


> The question that we need to consider (if there is agreement on this) is
> whether we are comfortable with not being responsive on many issues.  My
> sense is that there may be discomfort in the course of implementation and
> it will be something that we struggle with.  This is not to say that we
> should not do it!

We have done it already - but this mission is also by-law-mandated.
Furthermore, how do you choose the issues that need a response?

Kindest regards,

Olivier