[At-Large] Comments on the ALAC response to the mid-term consultation report

[Alan Greenberg]

Admittedly at the last moment, I have a few comments on the draft 
document 
(https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_response_to_the_mid_point_consultation_report).

Regarding the ICANN planning process and ALAC (Item 5), it is clear 
that ALAC should be a part of the process, but at least a part 
(perhaps a large part) of ALAC activities will continue to be demand 
driven, either involvement with ongoing issues (see item 8) or 
activities driven by issues that rise to the top of user priorities 
(such as Domain tasting or the post-expiry redemption issue).

Regarding involvement with the GNSO policy development process. I 
agree that the ALAC must be invited to participate. It should not be 
REQUIRED to, as there will always be numerous consultations that we 
decide our not sufficiently important to our community to warrant the 
effort. This is identical to the way Constituencies are treated 
within the GNSO.

Alan