[CCWG-ACCT] Responses to Rafael's Questions
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sat Feb 6 20:19:55 UTC 2016
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)
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.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community