[AfrICANN-discuss] Re: [technical-issues] [ALAC] Fwd: Invitation to an ICANN Advice kick-off workshop, Sunday, November 17 in Buenos Aires

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Olivier,

I agree with Lutz' position that ALAC should not restrict itself to travel to IGF fora to have their 6 minutes of fame, nor think that "addressing an issue" by way of a resolution solves the issue. They can do and achieve more...

I have not deep insight into ALAC's silos or empires, but I also encounter the same faces all the time.

I have been including the ALAC tech list and the AfrICANN list in the requests for presentations for TechDay, which we would like to expand on mandate of ccNSO Council, but have received hardly any response. 

What is irritating to no end is that the few presentations flowing from that were good to extremely good, meaning we Africans got the goods, but are "reluctant".

I can all but guarantee ANY proposal from a developing country made until shortly after the 2nd call to make it onto the agenda of any TechDay.

I have read about "orphan issues" recently. Where are the proposals from the users on how to deal with them?
Not only from the technical perspective but also from governance.

el

-- 

Sent from Dr. Lisse's iPhone 5


> On Nov 13, 2013, at 12:52, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Lutz,
> 
> I wouldn't go as far as saying that ALAC is no longer necessary if the
> ALAC cannot fulfil its technical part of its mandate because that's what
> it actually is: a part of its mandate. There are many other parts too
> many of which are to do with capacity building and with policy
> development that might be non technical in nature.
> That said, we do have the ability to comment on *all* of ICANN's
> processes and some of ICANN's work is technical in nature. As a result,
> we need to have a strong "Technical Issues" WG and I ask you all if you
> would like to join the WG or if you know anyone who might be an asset to
> the WG. With the "retirement" of some members, I do feel that we do not
> have enough people who have a broad technical knowledge that can help us
> with our Statements and relaying of  messages from the technical part of
> the At-Large community.
> Kind regards,
> 
> Olivier
> 
> 
>> On 13/11/2013 04:39, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:06:12AM +0800, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
>>> 4. The ALAC, as a community of Internet Users, is not positioned to offer
>>> technical advice, but our community would certainly be affected by
>>> technical issues and we certainly are a consumer of technical advice.  We
>>> therefore would want that advice to be available "on tap" as and when
>>> needed, in an easily understandable way, but also forthcoming proactively
>>> when there are issues of concern such as in the case of name and variant
>>> collisions.
>> I do not agree with this point. IMHO the problem is simply the inability of
>> AtLarge to give the technically skilled people (we have them!) the necessary
>> voice.
>> 
>> Most of the active AtLarge community appears to be a small group of
>> omnipresent people dealing with organizational issues. The AtLarge structure
>> makes it hard for the typical technical ones to participate and bring their
>> expertise in.
>> 
>> If we conclude that ALAC as the visible part of AtLarge is unable to fulfil
>> their technical obligations, ALAC is not longer necessary for an
>> organization which produces mainly technically driven results.
>> 
>> Yes, I'm guilty.
> 
> -- 
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD
> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Technical-issues mailing list
> Technical-issues at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/technical-issues