Re: [ALAC] [technical-issues] Fwd: Invitation to an ICANN Advice kick-off workshop, Sunday, November 17 in Buenos Aires
Dear Lutz, I wouldn't go as far as saying that ALAC is no longer necessary if the ALAC cannot fulfil its technical part of its mandate because that's what it actually is: a part of its mandate. There are many other parts too many of which are to do with capacity building and with policy development that might be non technical in nature. That said, we do have the ability to comment on *all* of ICANN's processes and some of ICANN's work is technical in nature. As a result, we need to have a strong "Technical Issues" WG and I ask you all if you would like to join the WG or if you know anyone who might be an asset to the WG. With the "retirement" of some members, I do feel that we do not have enough people who have a broad technical knowledge that can help us with our Statements and relaying of messages from the technical part of the At-Large community. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/11/2013 04:39, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:06:12AM +0800, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
4. The ALAC, as a community of Internet Users, is not positioned to offer technical advice, but our community would certainly be affected by technical issues and we certainly are a consumer of technical advice. We therefore would want that advice to be available "on tap" as and when needed, in an easily understandable way, but also forthcoming proactively when there are issues of concern such as in the case of name and variant collisions. I do not agree with this point. IMHO the problem is simply the inability of AtLarge to give the technically skilled people (we have them!) the necessary voice.
Most of the active AtLarge community appears to be a small group of omnipresent people dealing with organizational issues. The AtLarge structure makes it hard for the typical technical ones to participate and bring their expertise in.
If we conclude that ALAC as the visible part of AtLarge is unable to fulfil their technical obligations, ALAC is not longer necessary for an organization which produces mainly technically driven results.
Yes, I'm guilty.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
If memory serves Olivier, Lutz was (if not IS) Co-Chair of the WG and the Tech list... Perhaps he is calling for an effective resuscitation / refurbishment of it and its activities we do after all have many more technical focused people in our newer ALSes than we did when it was formed... CLO from my Mobile phone On 13/11/2013 9:52 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Lutz,
I wouldn't go as far as saying that ALAC is no longer necessary if the ALAC cannot fulfil its technical part of its mandate because that's what it actually is: a part of its mandate. There are many other parts too many of which are to do with capacity building and with policy development that might be non technical in nature. That said, we do have the ability to comment on *all* of ICANN's processes and some of ICANN's work is technical in nature. As a result, we need to have a strong "Technical Issues" WG and I ask you all if you would like to join the WG or if you know anyone who might be an asset to the WG. With the "retirement" of some members, I do feel that we do not have enough people who have a broad technical knowledge that can help us with our Statements and relaying of messages from the technical part of the At-Large community. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/11/2013 04:39, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:06:12AM +0800, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
4. The ALAC, as a community of Internet Users, is not positioned to offer technical advice, but our community would certainly be affected by technical issues and we certainly are a consumer of technical advice. We therefore would want that advice to be available "on tap" as and when needed, in an easily understandable way, but also forthcoming proactively when there are issues of concern such as in the case of name and variant collisions. I do not agree with this point. IMHO the problem is simply the inability of AtLarge to give the technically skilled people (we have them!) the necessary voice.
Most of the active AtLarge community appears to be a small group of omnipresent people dealing with organizational issues. The AtLarge structure makes it hard for the typical technical ones to participate and bring their expertise in.
If we conclude that ALAC as the visible part of AtLarge is unable to fulfil their technical obligations, ALAC is not longer necessary for an organization which produces mainly technically driven results.
Yes, I'm guilty.
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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+(ALA...)
Thanks for this suggestion Cheryl. Indeed, we need to build this community. I have discussed the building of a technical community within the At-Large ranks with IETF old timers but with little success so far. There still exists a deep distrust of ICANN - and a belief that being involved in At-Large on technical issues is a loss of time. I am hoping that the recent work that has taken place at top level with the ICANN CEO inviting the current IETF Chair to the ICANN meeting in Durban & the return invitation of the ICANN CEO to the Berlin IETF meeting will eventually yield some warming up of relations. I am also hoping that the recent development in the I* community will also naturally bring technical people to the At-Large ranks. Of course, there are also views within the At-Large community that there is no place for technical people in At-Large. After all, the Board has a Technical Liaison Group, and there's SSAC too, and RSSAC who are all technically minded. The fact is, though, that none of the other technically-minded Advisory Committees are political in nature. They will advise the Board on technical matters but they might find it a lot harder to *drive* issues to the Board and to other parts of ICANN. The ALAC, through its very broad mandate, is able to *drive* those issues. It has done so on advice regarding dotless & clashing top level domains, by *driving* SSAC advice to the Board but also to the GAC. In short, without a reliable and active Technical Issues WG, the ALAC is likely to let down Internet Users by not defending them on matters that are technical in nature. The technical issues WG needs, in my opinion: 1. a driving force that will keep it alive and buzzing and 2. to go on an outreach drive, getting people from IETF, from W3C and other technical organisations, to join it and contribute to it. This will not happen serendipitously. The work on IDNs that the At-Large Community has published is thanks to the hard work and leadership of a couple of people in the At-Large IDN WG. My proposal is that the Technical Issues WG get rejuvenated. Kind regards, Olivier On 13/11/2013 16:48, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
If memory serves Olivier, Lutz was (if not IS) Co-Chair of the WG and the Tech list...
Perhaps he is calling for an effective resuscitation / refurbishment of it and its activities we do after all have many more technical focused people in our newer ALSes than we did when it was formed...
CLO from my Mobile phone
On 13/11/2013 9:52 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote:
Dear Lutz,
I wouldn't go as far as saying that ALAC is no longer necessary if the ALAC cannot fulfil its technical part of its mandate because that's what it actually is: a part of its mandate. There are many other parts too many of which are to do with capacity building and with policy development that might be non technical in nature. That said, we do have the ability to comment on *all* of ICANN's processes and some of ICANN's work is technical in nature. As a result, we need to have a strong "Technical Issues" WG and I ask you all if you would like to join the WG or if you know anyone who might be an asset to the WG. With the "retirement" of some members, I do feel that we do not have enough people who have a broad technical knowledge that can help us with our Statements and relaying of messages from the technical part of the At-Large community. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 13/11/2013 04:39, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:06:12AM +0800, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >> 4. The ALAC, as a community of Internet Users, is not positioned to offer >> technical advice, but our community would certainly be affected by >> technical issues and we certainly are a consumer of technical advice. We >> therefore would want that advice to be available "on tap" as and when >> needed, in an easily understandable way, but also forthcoming proactively >> when there are issues of concern such as in the case of name and variant >> collisions. > I do not agree with this point. IMHO the problem is simply the inability of > AtLarge to give the technically skilled people (we have them!) the necessary > voice. > > Most of the active AtLarge community appears to be a small group of > omnipresent people dealing with organizational issues. The AtLarge structure > makes it hard for the typical technical ones to participate and bring their > expertise in. > > If we conclude that ALAC as the visible part of AtLarge is unable to fulfil > their technical obligations, ALAC is not longer necessary for an > organization which produces mainly technically driven results. > > Yes, I'm guilty. >
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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+(ALA...) <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28A...>
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
participants (2)
-
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond