[CCWG-ACCT] Responses to Rafael's Questions

[Seun Ojedeji]

FWIW I don't know what gives you that impression but yes no doubt about the
activeness of ALAC (AtLarge) but I think adding "equal footing" to it may
be too optimistic.
That said, I don't think this is where to resolve that (if there is
anything to resolve)

Cheers!
On 6 Feb 2016 9:02 p.m., "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

> I just want to reach to this and note that ALAC and At-Large members are
> very active in the GNSO policy development processes on equal footing with
> GNSO members. SO unless I am missing something I don’t think that this is
> reflective of the current realities for the GNSO policy processes.
>
> -James
>
>
>
>
> On 06/02/2016, 7:37 p.m., "
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Eric
> (Maule) Brunner-Williams" <
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of
> ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
>
> >We have struggled over the years with the problem that the GAC, and also
> >ALAC, have no structural means of participating in policy development (in
> >any of the SOs), and so are constrained to react to policy proposals.
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160206/ab5b0055/attachment.html>