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

Wed Nov 13 23:17:39 UTC 2013

Thanks for this suggestion Cheryl.

Indeed, we need to build this community. I have discussed the building
of a technical community within the At-Large ranks with IETF old timers
but with little success so far. There still exists a deep distrust of
ICANN - and a belief that being involved in At-Large on technical issues
is a loss of time. I am hoping that the recent work that has taken place
at top level with the ICANN CEO inviting the current IETF Chair to the
ICANN meeting in Durban & the return invitation of the ICANN CEO to the
Berlin IETF meeting will eventually yield some warming up of relations.
I am also hoping that the recent development in the I* community will
also naturally bring technical people to the At-Large ranks.

Of course, there are also views within the At-Large community that there
is no place for technical people in At-Large. After all, the Board has a
Technical Liaison Group, and there's SSAC too, and RSSAC who are all
technically minded. The fact is, though, that none of the other
technically-minded Advisory Committees are political in nature. They
will advise the Board on technical matters but they might find it a lot
harder to *drive* issues to the Board and to other parts of ICANN. The
ALAC, through its very broad mandate, is able to *drive* those issues.
It has done so on advice regarding dotless & clashing top level domains,
by *driving* SSAC advice to the Board but also to the GAC.

In short, without a reliable and active Technical Issues WG, the ALAC is
likely to let down Internet Users by not defending them on matters that
are technical in nature.

The technical issues WG needs, in my opinion: 1. a driving force that
will keep it alive and buzzing and 2. to go on an outreach drive,
getting people from IETF, from W3C and other technical organisations, to
join it and contribute to it.

This will not happen serendipitously. The work on IDNs that the At-Large
Community has published is thanks to the hard work and leadership of a
couple of people in the At-Large IDN WG. My proposal is that the
Technical Issues WG get rejuvenated.

Kind regards,

Olivier

On 13/11/2013 16:48, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
>
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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)
>     <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC%29>
>

-- 
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
http://www.gih.com/ocl.html