<html>
<body>
Evan, as you say, it is responsibility of staff to alert us to available
comments, we should only reply if we think there is merit. To a large
extent, I think we are doing a reasonable job, although there is still
room for improvement. These days, we rarely issue an ALAC comment just
because one person has a personal stake or view on the issue, and we less
often issue a "rah-rah great job" comments.<br><br>
During the review, it was suggested that we have "standards"
and although we implicitly have imposed some, perhaps it is time to put
them into words. Things that come to mind are:<br><br>
- Is there a significant impact on users?<br>
- Is there a significant impact on ICANN as a viable organization?<br>
- Do we have something to say that should or may alter the
outcomes?<br><br>
Your reference to the Re-opened PDP on Red Cross names is worth a
comment. Although I will not necessarily attribute the same causes to it
as you do, we do have various parties arguing the fine (and not so fine)
points of international accords and local laws. I don't recall if you
were on the call where I intervened (I think the 2nd one). Someone,
perhaps the Chair had said that we must establish policy in accordance
with the applicable laws. I said (perhaps in only slightly different
words) that this was hogwash (for non-English speakers
<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hogwash" eudora="autourl">
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hogwash</a>,
<a href="http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hogwash" eudora="autourl">
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hogwash</a>,
<a href="http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hogwash" eudora="autourl">
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hogwash</a>). <br><br>
Much of the gTLD policy that ICANN sets is a compromise based on special
interests. Rarely is "law involved" and although we should not
set policy that is clearly illegal, the basis in law is almost never
considered (if it were we would be more sensitive to privacy
issues).<br><br>
The answer was: true, but the GNSO Council will want to verify that we
have good reason for making recommendations. I didn't bother answering,
and although I am not known for being quiet on ICANN calls, I have not
been very active since.<br><br>
SO yes, we need to pick our battles, and to a large extent, I think we
are getting reasonably good at it.<br><br>
Alan<br><br>
At 02/09/2017 12:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On 2 September 2017 at 09:05,
<<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">
h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<dl>
<dd>I've had a look at all three, and am not sure they are of real
importance to ALAC<br>
<dl><br>
</dl>
</dl><br>
Holly is exactly right.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
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:
<a href="http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Bikeshedding">bikeshedding</a>
.<br><br>
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.<br><br>
Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most reliably emerges any time
the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst.<br><br>
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.
<br><br>
This is bikeshedding by design. Resist.<br><br>
Cheers,<br>
Evan<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>