[ALAC] [technical-issues] Fwd: Invitation to an ICANN Advice kick-off workshop, Sunday, November 17 in Buenos Aires

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

If memory serves Olivier, Lutz was (if not IS) Co-Chair of the WG and the
Tech list...

Perhaps he is calling for an effective resuscitation / refurbishment of it
and its activities we do after all have many more technical focused people
in our newer ALSes than we did when it was formed...

CLO from my Mobile phone
On 13/11/2013 9:52 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Lutz,
>
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that ALAC is no longer necessary if the
> ALAC cannot fulfil its technical part of its mandate because that's what
> it actually is: a part of its mandate. There are many other parts too
> many of which are to do with capacity building and with policy
> development that might be non technical in nature.
> That said, we do have the ability to comment on *all* of ICANN's
> processes and some of ICANN's work is technical in nature. As a result,
> we need to have a strong "Technical Issues" WG and I ask you all if you
> would like to join the WG or if you know anyone who might be an asset to
> the WG. With the "retirement" of some members, I do feel that we do not
> have enough people who have a broad technical knowledge that can help us
> with our Statements and relaying of  messages from the technical part of
> the At-Large community.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> On 13/11/2013 04:39, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:06:12AM +0800, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> >> 4. The ALAC, as a community of Internet Users, is not positioned to
> offer
> >> technical advice, but our community would certainly be affected by
> >> technical issues and we certainly are a consumer of technical advice.
>  We
> >> therefore would want that advice to be available "on tap" as and when
> >> needed, in an easily understandable way, but also forthcoming
> proactively
> >> when there are issues of concern such as in the case of name and variant
> >> collisions.
> > I do not agree with this point. IMHO the problem is simply the inability
> of
> > AtLarge to give the technically skilled people (we have them!) the
> necessary
> > voice.
> >
> > Most of the active AtLarge community appears to be a small group of
> > omnipresent people dealing with organizational issues. The AtLarge
> structure
> > makes it hard for the typical technical ones to participate and bring
> their
> > expertise in.
> >
> > If we conclude that ALAC as the visible part of AtLarge is unable to
> fulfil
> > their technical obligations, ALAC is not longer necessary for an
> > organization which produces mainly technically driven results.
> >
> > Yes, I'm guilty.
> >
>
> --
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>