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. 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