<html>
<body>
For comments directly related to WG where we have participants, it is not
a problem, They ARE the resource we use to determine if a comment is
needed and at times to bring others up to speed. It is for all of the
other comments that can be more problematic.<br><br>
ALan<br><br>
At 02/09/2017 05:37 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Hello Alan,<br><br>
Thanks for your response. I think one of the challenges (which by the way
I am also guilty of) is the lack of significant active At-Large folks in
those WGs. <br><br>
My question then was whether those active in it can help flag the issues
while staff develop documents that provides background explanation which
then helps those who are not quite active to have the opportunity to
contribute which may then serve as sufficient information to improve
participation in the WGs.<br><br>
Regards<br><br>
Sent from my mobile<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br><br>
On Sep 2, 2017 8:09 PM, "Alan Greenberg"
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>Seun, I will note that there is a page of upcoming public comments -
<a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en">
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en</a>. Perhaps
we have people who would be willing to review that regularly and identify
issues that we want staff to brief us on.<br><br>
<dd>And of course, it would be good if we had active WGs on topics that
we know are going to be in out view.<br><br>
<dd>Alan<br><br>
<br>
<dd>At 02/09/2017 01:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>Hello Evan,<br><br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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. <br><br>
<dd>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<br><br>
<dd>Regards<br><br>
<dd>Sent from my mobile<br>
<dd>Kindly excuse brevity and typos<br><br>
<dd>On Sep 2, 2017 5:20 PM, "Evan Leibovitch"
<<a href="mailto:evan@telly.org">evan@telly.org</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>On 2 September 2017 at 09:05,
<<a href="mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net">
h.raiche@internode.on.net</a>> wrote:
<dd>
<dl>
<dd>I've had a look at all three, and am not sure they are of real
importance to ALAC<br>
<br><br>
</dl>
<dd>â€â€¹Holly is exactly right.<br>
<dd>At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources ÂÂ-- notably in
those who have the time, skills and background necessary to analyze such
matters and write cogent, relevant responses.â€â€¹<br>
<br>
<dd>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>
<dd>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>
.
<dd>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>
<dd>Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most reliably emerges any
time the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst.<br>
<dd>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>
<dd>This is bikeshedding by design. Resist.<br>
<dd>Cheers,
<dd>Evan<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>ALAC mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org">
ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac" eudora="autourl">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac</a><br>
<dd>At-Large Online:
<a href="http://www.atlarge.icann.org">http://www.atlarge.icann.org</a>
<dd>ALAC Working Wiki:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)">
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)</a>
</blockquote>
</dl><br>
</dl></blockquote></body>
</html>