The purpose of the roll call was to get ALAC members to focus on policy work; having listened to the last ALAC teleconference wherein policy matters received the usual amount of attention (almost none) I deemed this to be a reasonable approach to solicit a response. Perhaps this can be attributed to a matter of growing pains.
We are clearly in a transitional period in which we have an ALAC that was created to oversee the initial formation of ALSs and RALOs, now dealing with the fact that the _initial_ job is done and its role is changing. For the At-Large system to work, ALAC needs to evolve into a co-ordinating and leadership role, and it will fail if ALAC members (as opposed to members of RALOs) are called on to do all of the policy heavy lifting. I would hope that the role of ALAC would be of stewardship of the process rather than having to do everything itself. It doesn't help the matter of stability that all of this comes under review soon. What _can_ survive the ALAC review, that badly need to be created, are methods and channels through which: 1) Publicly understandable information is collected and distributed to RALO members (and staff is sufficiently held accountable for producing it) 2) RALO members are engaged to find people can come forward who are interested in the various policy areas and create the various WGs 3) The RALO members are able to comment and participate in any draft opinions produced by the WGs 4) Resulting opinions are submitted to appropriate contacts within ICANN Many of these processes are well established in many of ICANN's other constituencies; those conventions, with the exception of (4), will not work in At-Large. As I have said before, At-Large is not NCUC; it is critical to avoid assumptions about the motivations and skill levels of RALO members, based on what exists within ICANN's other constituencies. It is also critical not to panic, or demand haste for its own sake. The fact that the whole At-Large is incapable of appropriately commenting on the immediate issues of the day is mostly a matter of ICANN staff's inability to respond appropriately to community needs. (And no, Nick, this is not a personal attack ... if you're overloaded then you should be given appropriate support; At-Large should not be held hostage to painfully slow hiring process. Indeed, there are certainly things that are assumed to be done by Staff that the community can do faster and/or less expensively.) The recent demands of some that At-Large be ready to respond immediately to ICANN's issues are just ludicrous. The community is still feelings its way, and many transitions are taking place (some fighting inertia more than others). If there's a complaint about how much money has been spent so far with so little apparent progress, don't blame At-Large since we have no say on how it's spent. If the community is ever given the chance to participate and offer efficiencies, everyone may be pleasantly surprised -- from my own experience I think most ALSs would prefer as little bureaucracy as possible. In the meantime ... if some At-Large members (especially outside ALAC) are able to comment appropriately on the issues of the day, that's a happy bonus but should not be assumed. Most of At-Large is still very new to all this, and the ICANN veterans amongst us need to adjust to a very different reality than they are used to. We all still have much to learn. - Evan