Not only that but the ICANN Board, as part of its priorities, *"...has recently taken a decision that all future Board resolutions will not only be supported by a clear rationale but will also contain an analysis of how each resolution aligns with ICANN**'s Mission.* *"*​ They intend to as ask SOs, ACs, and CCWGs to* "...include a similar analysis in recommendations, policies, and advice submitted to the Board for consideration."* ​-ed​ On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 5:42 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

We have a discussion of Public Comments scheduled to occur on Sunday. The intent is that come to an agreement on how to decide on issuing a comment and the process to follow.

Currently, when a new Public Comment opens, or we receive a request for input from some group, either the ALAC or the ALT reviews the issue at one of its meeting. If it is an ALT meeting and a recommendation is made, it is conveyed to the ALAC. Typically we either decide not to respond, or ask someone for a more detailed analysis. Sometimes a comment is written at that stage, without really "deciding" to do so.

This process is problematic for a number of reasons. The time lost before a meeting or before someone looks at the issue is critical and tends to use most of the available time. This results in little time for review and revision. A new method must be found.

The question of when to respond is perhaps easier:

- We have something SUBSTANTIVE to say - We feel a token Thank you (we agree) is felt to be important - There are users implications - There are implications related to ICANN's overall organization, effectiveness, finance or credibility.

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac

At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)