Re: [alac] ALAC discussions (moved to the public list)
I'm new here, but I'm fairly optimistic about the things I'm hearing about the ALAC. We've spent some substantial time today discussing our future, but I left the discussion rather encouraged.
By the way, the current ICANN Bylaws (and all previous versions) provide a mechanism for accrediting new constituencies for the GNSO. See, http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4 We could certainly facilitate ALAC groups with similar interests (like libraries, educators, etc.) in the process of becoming a GNSO constituency. I would rather follow that path than see GNSO constituencies replace the ALAC.
For an addition to the agenda, can we confront the major question head-on: Is ALAC (and its ponderous ALS-RALO appendages) a meaningful, appropriate, or sufficient means for individual involvement in ICANN? After two years at it, I think the answer is no, but I think we're at least well placed to propose some better alternatives. What about jump-starting some other full-fledged constituencies to complement non-commercial: libraries, educators, registrants, privacy constituency? It's plain there are a lot of people who are burned out from trying to deal with ICANN, but many more might participate if given meaningful opportunities on par with commercial interests, rather than subordinate to them.