Re: [ga] request for details about ALAC members

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Absolutely true.
I have however two reproaches to make ALAC.

1. to lack PRs. I am still unable to understand where they are documented, 
etc. I know I am dumb. But I would suggest that our ALAC people attach an 
ALAC site URL on all their posts. At the end of the day I will nogtice it 
and click. I do not think they represent me, but is it a reason not to know 
them and to help them if they do something good?

2. Actually I do not think they are to represent me but  to document ICANN 
on what I say. I have nothing against that, if this can help a dialog (I 
can prompt a subject as can ICANN) and if we are not taken aside of the 
debate when real technical, societal, political issues are involved. For 
that I think ALAC should in a way or another extend its organization to 
atlarge specialized advisory committees. ALSACs on matters of interest to 
@large.

This would be of help in term of technology/architecture as root, IDNA, 
SiteFinder, ccTLDs, etc. show it. It could aslo be of help to get ALAC and 
icannatlarge together. ALAC did a good job, icannatalrge also does in 
another way. Let forget some event of the past and let recall all the help 
Thomas provided.
jfc

At 20:26 08/10/03, DPF wrote:
> I can only agree entirely with Jon's words.  I have found the attacks
> on ALAC members appalling.
>
> Despite my distaste for how ALAC is structured, I note that they have
> managed to put together several very sensible pro-registant and
> pro-user policy statements on topical issues, which is far more than
> certain other groups have done.