HI Danny, Alan I am not sure that basing the proposed WG on substantial ALAC member participation will work, as many ALAC members seem to be really busy. For example, at this time I have serious time limitations based on my ill parents and my new and hopefully temporary role as only caregiver to them (which has actually required me to take leave from my job for the past 5 weeks and from the ALAC for a couple of weeks recently) BUT ALS participation might... if we do a call to all the regions we might get some people interested in this issue to participate. But time is of the essence as we only have 2 weeks. So if this is reasonable to all, I will draft an invitation to the various regions and we can try to set up for a Monday start if we get volunteers. But a 1 or 2 person effort won't make any sense, I agree. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 12:43 To: Danny Younger; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting At 11/10/2007 11:15 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
I am prepared to participate in a limited duration At-Large WG on new gTLD policy... as long as there is some indication that other members of the ALAC are prepared to get some policy work done -- that means involvement from the ALAC "as a whole" in such an initiative so that folk like Vittorio don't get stuck with all the heavy lifting (as happened previously in the RAA WG).
Since the LA meeting is slightly more than two weeks from now, you are suggesting a significant effort. If you think that we can actually get ALAC members (and others) to contribute, I would be delighted. Unfortunately in the past, such efforts have devolved into being a one-person show, thus having far less credibility than they otherwise might.
We could use the gnso-liaison mailing list as the place to hold discussions on the current GNSO new gTLD recommendations so that ultimately a set of questions and/or recommendations may emerge (whether they will be directed to the GNSO Councilors or directly to the Board is for the ALAC to decide).
Regardless of what you or others may think of the process, the GNSO report on gTLDs is already delivered, so directing further comments to the GNSO council has no merit. Directing succinct and supported comments to the Board is QUITE appropriate. As far as I can see gnso-liaison list has only had one message on it (from Nick) and very few subscribers, so there is probably no conflict in using it.
Let me know if you have any issues with this approach.
regards, Danny
___________________________________________________________________________
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today! http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or g
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.7/1062 - Release Date: 10/10/2007 17:11 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.8/1064 - Release Date: 10/11/2007 15:09