[ALAC] Bikeshedding [was Re: Open Public Comment Proceedings]
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Sep 2 18:07:21 UTC 2017
Seun, I will note that there is a page of
upcoming public comments -
Perhaps we have people who would be willing to
review that regularly and identify issues that we want staff to brief us on.
And of course, it would be good if we had active
WGs on topics that we know are going to be in out view.
At 02/09/2017 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>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
>Sent from my mobile
>Kindly excuse brevity and typos
>On Sep 2, 2017 5:20 PM, "Evan Leibovitch"
><<mailto:evan at telly.org>evan at telly.org> wrote:
>On 2 September 2017 at 09:05,
><<mailto:h.raiche at internode.on.net>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
>âHolly is exactly right.
>At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources
>Â-- notably in those who have the time, skills
>and background necessary to analyze such matters
>and write cogent, relevant responses.â
>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
>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.
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ALAC