The bylaw mandate is clear and unambiguous; ALAC is to represent the interests of end-users to the Board.

All else -- PDPs, CCWGs and all the other alphabet soup -- is and must be secondary. Its participation in the rest of these groups may be useful but cannot undermine the primary task of informing the Board. In these cases ALAC sets its own frames of references, its own definitions, and its own assumptions; it is not, and must not, be biased by of the pressures of other constituencies.

The contracted parties give ICANN its money, but the world at large (who will never buy a domain) gives ICANN its legitimacy.
Let's please not forget this.

Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch / @el56


On Mon, 14 Jun 2021 at 06:19, Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Dear all,
At today's session on "End User Participation in ICANN PDPs and their Role within the ICANN ecosystem” we had different opinions on how to deal with the situation in which At-Large does not reach a consensus position.
>From the discussion on the chat it emerged that there are different views. I also believe that this impacts also on the role of ALAC as Advisory Committee. I wonder whether we need to separate the participation on the PDP from the advice (to the Board).
Maybe we should have in a future CPWG session a discussion on this topic.
Cheers,
Roberto
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.