Hello Nadira. That was the point I was drawing at. Now yesterday call if I get Alan correctly is for ALAC to accept or otherwise any proposal or observations made because the work of the WP was over or completed. Which should not be. Our work would be completed after the community AND RALOs have made their inputs and proposals for inclusion. Then we develop a cleaner document representing every interest. The motion that ALAC set up the WP and such the report is for them to consider is true but after every interest have been represented. The argument that each RALO was represented in the WP is not absolute because, after the work, now is the time for each RALO to geberally look at the document and not take any decision taken by the WP as final. It is after inputs have been collated and added that our report goes to ALAC. I made this point during our calls. I wrote it as a petition. I was ignored. Secondly Sebastian made a good proposal yesterday that the community needs time to properly review the document in line with extant practice in icann. And so, these two hours call is doing deservice to that practice. ALAC should not be in a hurry to adopt this document and send to the board to adopt. If the board and ALAC believes in the principle of multistakeholderism from bottom up and not the other way, then, the community needs time. It is not the 2wks proposal by Maureen last night. We are not in a hurry. This document will have a far reaching implications at the end on the future of icann and the community. It was also premature for Alan to have sent the draft to the legal team before the community input even without the knowledge of the WP. Thank you. Pastor Peters Omoragbon Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: ALS-Mob-WP <als-mob-wp-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2020 11:01:35 PM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Cc: ALS-Mob-WP <als-mob-wp@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALS-Mob-WP] Proposed Bylaw changes Dear Alan, Thank you for our excellent presentation and leading the discussions for the meeting. I would like to ask what would be the next step to reflect some of the comments received from the community. Jean raised a good point to be consistent in the process of the accreditation and the withdrawal of the accreditation. Would be good to have in writing the comments on the suggested WP change of the bylaws. Because I couldn't follow the discussion. I hope those who shared these points will raise them on the mailing list. Best wishes, Nadira On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 5:41 AM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: You may recall that we were going to have the proposed Bylaw changes reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel to make sure they sis not see any conflicts or other problems. That has now been done and there have been no red flags raised. So one more step is done. Note that two Webinars on the report have been scheduled: - Tue, 10 Nov 202 at 20:00 UTC (about 16 hours from now) - Thu, 12 Nov 202 at 13:00 UTC Your participation in either or both would be welcome. Alan _______________________________________________ ALS-Mob-WP mailing list ALS-Mob-WP@icann.org<mailto:ALS-Mob-WP@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/als-mob-wp _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. --