Hi Seun, On 2 September 2017 at 13:24, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for this and for raising a point about what you think we should be focusing our resources upon. May I suggest you kindly provide references to the discussion you refer so that people like myself can also follow-up.
Well, the mailing list archives for the Red Cross issue can be found here <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-igo-ingo/>. Grab a strongly caffeinated beverage before entering. But there others like it. We struggle to find the end-user interest in mechanical issues such as "vertical integration", which matter a great deal to the industry but not a whole lot to non-registrant end-users. Yet we get caught up in them, taking resources away from broader topics such as the ethics of domain speculation and trademark-owner intimidation which *do* impact end users.
That said, I wonder whether once someone raises an issue of importance, staff can be in a position to provide brief documentation that helps others have some background understanding of the issue in other to better contribute to the discussion.
The talent wasted among At-Large-dedicated staff is staggering. People who have deep backgrounds in policy research and analysis find themselves dealing with travel problems and meeting schedules. The At-Large Review underway recommends that *"**ICANN staff are to be more proactively engaged in support of the Community’s policy work"*. This is among the few outcomes of the Review with which I agree. Professional word-smithing and research support cannot be over-valued in this realm.
Overall we should not be waiting for PC before ALAC puts in position statements to WG and/or advice to the Board
A few years ago when I was more deeply involved, At-Large (or people involved with it) would produce topical white papers and high-level documents that provoked thought and were intended to be more proactive and less reactive. Perhaps that tactic ought to be revisited. - Evan