FWIW I don't know what gives you that impression but yes no doubt about the activeness of ALAC (AtLarge) but I think adding "equal footing" to it may be too optimistic. That said, I don't think this is where to resolve that (if there is anything to resolve) Cheers! On 6 Feb 2016 9:02 p.m., "James Gannon" <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
I just want to reach to this and note that ALAC and At-Large members are very active in the GNSO policy development processes on equal footing with GNSO members. SO unless I am missing something I don’t think that this is reflective of the current realities for the GNSO policy processes.
-James
On 06/02/2016, 7:37 p.m., " accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams" < accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
We have struggled over the years with the problem that the GAC, and also ALAC, have no structural means of participating in policy development (in any of the SOs), and so are constrained to react to policy proposals.
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community