Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency.
I agree. ALAC simply can't serve this purpose, given the level and nature of the resources given it. By name and role it is designed to provide policy input and educate the public (in large part, to assist in the credible assembly of public-focused policy). It is, however, completely reasonable to assert that ALAC has a critical role in ensuring ICANN has such a mechanism. Indeed, one can easily suggest that ALAC -- as the one body within ICANN intended to represent the public interest -- has a duty to press for this and perhaps even architect it. One of my biggest surprises since becoming involved in At-Large is the (seemingly) completely reactive nature of ALAC. Respond to this paper, meet that deadline, jump when others say to jump. ALAC appears to have rarely -- at least so long as I've seen -- helped to _drive_ the ICANN policy agenda, to assert issues that are important to the public that the governments, the registries and the trademark lawyers need to address. Is this a matter of maturity and self-awareness, that will come as ALAC gets its feet and the grassroots asserts its proper place? Or is this flaw inherent in the design? Alan has said on the domain tasting issue that the NSOs listen to us only by courtesy; that if we ever raise an issue that they don't want exposed, that issue may never see the light of day. - Evan