I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus
Here they are:
==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft:
-----
Suggestions welcome.
I suggest a revision to reflect the following: There should be a distinction between liaisons and those selected for specific task forces. Liaisons should be more familiar with the current atmosphere of ALAC and RALOs because they should be prepared to reflect ALAC thinking on any problem that arises, while Task Forces are more narrowly focused and presumably the person chosen by ICANN is qualified for the particular task. So I suggest that the wording for liaisons be such that 'normally' an ALAC member or recent member be expected to be appointed, while no such preference be stated for task forces. ----------------------------------------------------
==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals:
-------------------------------------------------------- I thought that the absolute number 9 answered all concerns in the telephone conference. If everybody votes, then 9 is one more than simple majority, in fact it is half+one rounded up; if the minimum quorum of 10 vote, then 9 is large enough not to make such a vote easy. ----------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with Adam that we should formalize our selection for NomComm; here's an area where we could ask the public and specially the ALSs for nominations. Best, Siavash
Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org