Evan, as you say, it is responsibility of staff to alert us to available comments, we should only reply if we think there is merit. To a large extent, I think we are doing a reasonable job, although there is still room for improvement. These days, we rarely issue an ALAC comment just because one person has a personal stake or view on the issue, and we less often issue a "rah-rah great job" comments. During the review, it was suggested that we have "standards" and although we implicitly have imposed some, perhaps it is time to put them into words. Things that come to mind are: - Is there a significant impact on users? - Is there a significant impact on ICANN as a viable organization? - Do we have something to say that should or may alter the outcomes? Your reference to the Re-opened PDP on Red Cross names is worth a comment. Although I will not necessarily attribute the same causes to it as you do, we do have various parties arguing the fine (and not so fine) points of international accords and local laws. I don't recall if you were on the call where I intervened (I think the 2nd one). Someone, perhaps the Chair had said that we must establish policy in accordance with the applicable laws. I said (perhaps in only slightly different words) that this was hogwash (for non-English speakers http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hogwash, http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hogwash, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Hogwash). Much of the gTLD policy that ICANN sets is a compromise based on special interests. Rarely is "law involved" and although we should not set policy that is clearly illegal, the basis in law is almost never considered (if it were we would be more sensitive to privacy issues). The answer was: true, but the GNSO Council will want to verify that we have good reason for making recommendations. I didn't bother answering, and although I am not known for being quiet on ICANN calls, I have not been very active since. SO yes, we need to pick our battles, and to a large extent, I think we are getting reasonably good at it. Alan At 02/09/2017 12:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 2 September 2017 at 09:05, <<mailto:h.raiche@internode.on.net>h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
I've had a look at all three, and am not sure they are of real importance to ALAC
âHolly is exactly right.
At-Large has a scarcity of volunteer resources Â-- notably in those who have the time, skills and background necessary to analyze such matters and write cogent, relevant responses.â
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: <http://communitymgt.wikia.com/wiki/Bikeshedding>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.
This is bikeshedding by design. Resist.
Cheers, Evan