Siavash Shahshahani ha scritto:
Great work, I've gone through it once quickly, but requires more thought.
Sure - if we like, we might put it on the agenda by sections, for example discuss the first 2-3 sections in the next conf call or on-list in the next couple of weeks, then move to the following ones and so on.
Just a couple of questions and comments for now: 1. I would personally prefer that the the ALAC liaison to the Board be an ALAC member or a recent member(past 2-year term)so that the person is in tune with current ALAC thinking. Even for GNSO and ccNSO the default should be to have an ALAC member. Otherwise, I'm afraid ALAC would face pressures from the bodies to which it is appointing liaisons to have their candidates.
We could say that liaison nominees should be either the incumbent (apart that we might want to put a limit on reappointments in officer positions, for example 2 x 2 year terms, or 3 x 1 - I think I forgot about that), a current ALAC member, or a former ALAC member who left the committee from no more than two years. Is there support for this?
2. If you're going to allow only ALAC members to nominate or self-nominate, what is the point of dong it on the Public List? Transparency?
Yes. But again, we can change all these details as we like - mine is just an initial proposal. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------