On 13 January 2017 at 11:02, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Although I clearly understand the connection between PIR:ISOC:ISOC Chapters, I am curious as to exactly what you see as the potential conflict?
At a meta level, this: PIR does a great many objectively-good things in supporting user-centric and progressive Internet Governance, not only in its support of ISOC (though that is its most high-profile benefactor). But to do that, PIR must still maximize revenue from domain sales, which presents a potential conflict with At-Large approaches to domain policy. I'm also concerned about the optics. As I said in an earlier mail, the At-Large Review seems overly interested by the ALAC/ISOC connections, and this would be a good opportunity -- if we can so avail -- to bring forward those in the community outside that alleged influence. That's all. If the talent pool is sufficiently small that the best rep is indeed an ISOC Chapter member, and PIR is OK with that, then OK by me too. I just suggest making an explicit effort looking outside ISOC-affiliated ALSs.