It is admittedly late in the day -- and as Mathieu says, since voting weights too important to be pushed to WS2 - my personal view is: we could wait for public comments and if there is concern expressed on the role of ALAC (among other so/acs), expect the co-chairs to flag it, and as CCWG we respond substantively to this concern. 

Meanwhile, we go along with the proposal as is. I say this without prejudice to the views of colleagues in the CCWG who have expressed similar concerns. Reason for saying it: public comment period is the closest this working group has to accept user comments because not every user can participate in this exercise.

Arun

On Mon, Jul 27, 2015 at 11:09 PM, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.na> wrote:
I was just quoting from the first sentence on the ALAC web site defining what At-Large is.

el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

On Jul 27, 2015, at 17:09, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

[...]

 

Insofar as they advise on policy development activities to the board as part of their role yes, but the ALAC is not directly responsible for policy development, that role is for the supporting organizations the ASO, ccNSO and GNSO.

 

-James

 

 [...]


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community




--
-
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272