[ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Sep 2 17:24:36 UTC 2017


Hello Evan,

Thanks for this and for raising a point about what you think we should be
focusing our resources upon. May I suggest you kindly provide references to
the discussion you refer so that people like myself can also follow-up.

I think we should consider a issue triggering approach to help focus our
discussion and spur up interest. What I mean by this is that folks
participating in certain working group discussion that find something they
believe ALAC should weigh in on can flag/raise it and that can form
discussion topics during ALAC calls and on the list. I think that approach
worked well during the transition.

That said, I wonder whether once someone raises an issue of importance,
staff can be in a position to provide brief documentation that helps others
have some background understanding of the issue in other to better
contribute to the discussion. Overall we should not be waiting for PC
before ALAC puts in position statements to WG and/or advice to the Board

Regards

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Sep 2, 2017 5:20 PM, "Evan Leibovitch" <evan at telly.org> wrote:

> On 2 September 2017 at 09:05, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
>
>
>> I've had a look at all three, and am not sure they are of real importance
>> to ALAC
>>
>>
> ​Holly is exactly right.
>
> At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources ­-- notably in those who
> have the time, skills and background necessary to analyze such matters and
> write cogent, relevant responses.​
>
> While it is wholly appropriate of staff to ensure that we don't
> accidentally miss anything, it is also incumbent upon At-Large (and
> especially its leadership) to show the discipline necessary to ignore that
> minutiae and concentrate on the larger picture of how ICANN actions impact
> end-users globally. We have not always succeeded in this discipline.
>
> In fact, yesterday a software developer friend of mine introduced me to a
> term I hadn't heard before, that IMO well describes ALAC's historic
> tendency to get caught up in the flurry of responding to ICANN's trivia and
> losing sight of the real bylaw-mandated purpose we are here to serve:
> bikeshedding <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Bikeshedding>.
>
> Right now I am involved in a GNSO working group in which domain industry
> representatives are insisting to pore over every word of the Geneva
> Convention to determine whether the Red Cross has the right to ask that its
> names not be in the pool of domains for sale in gTLDs. At least from an
> end-user standpoint this is absolutely absurd; we don't need this kind of
> time wastage for At-Large to tell the Board and community of ICANN that
> enabling commercial (ab)use of Red Cross/Crescent/Diamond/etc domain names
> is morally repugnant.
>
> Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most reliably emerges any time
> the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst.
>
> Industry advocates paid to divert stakeholders from the big picture have
> created an ICANN process designed to distract and waste resources from
> those of us without the financial incentive or means to keep up.
>
> This is bikeshedding by design. Resist.
>
> Cheers,
> Evan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20170902/fee8c118/attachment.html>


More information about the ALAC mailing list