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

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Wed Feb 13 09:01:57 UTC 2013

Dear Olivier,

Apologies for delayed response.  Blame it all on Chinese New Year and all
that it brings.
Responses threaded.

Best regards,


On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> 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.
> RAR:  Yes, we need growth of our "active" community, which we can do in 2
> ways.  We can actively encourage and we can nurture, both in a targeted
> way.  I think we have some good foundational initiatives that will help
> with this including the capacity building work and objectives.

> > 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?
> RAR:  We choose by assessing the issues against a matrix of criteria to be
developed. :)

> Kindest regards,
> Olivier

More information about the ALAC mailing list