I put my comments on a different wiki page which also claims to be the ALAC response: <https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_the_bgc_alac_revi...> Regarding points 10 and 11, I think the case is overstated. ALAC is /an/ appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, but because of its Advisory role, ALAC is not an effective route for participation in many policy-making processes. Opportunities for individuals and their representatives to participate in existing GNSO constituencies and new stakeholder groups are equally important. If other entities have the demonstrable support of representative groups of individuals, they are no less legitimate voices than the ALAC. Why do we have multiple pages with similar text? --Wendy Alan Greenberg wrote:
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_con...).
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
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/