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

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Dear Olivier,

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

Best regards,

Rinalia

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
>