I've had a look at all three, and am not sure they are of real importance to ALAC
Holly is exactly right.
At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources -- notably in those who have the time, skills and background necessary to analyze such matters and write cogent, relevant responses.
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.
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: bikeshedding.
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.
Many other examples exist in At-Large. It most reliably emerges any time the phrase "public interest" is invoked in our midst.
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.