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!
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