Dear all, On September 30 (2024) I proposed to add some rules of establishing WG/TF/special committees (please find my proposition in the forwarded letter below). I do not see this proposition in the "clear" version of EURAPO RoP. Does it mean that someone rejected my proposition? If yes, who rejected it? Just in case, I am a EURALO Board member, and in EURALO Board meetings we did not discuss this proposition. Thank you very much in advance, Kind regards, Oksana ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Oksana Prykhodko <sana.pryhod@gmail.com> Date: Mon, Sep 30, 2024 at 5:24 PM Subject: The role of WGs in the EURALO CIP document and in the RoP To: Sebastien Bachollet <sebicann@bachollet.fr>, ftaes@tsf.be <ftaes@tsf.be>, Oliver Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, filinafilka@gmail.com < filinafilka@gmail.com>, sana.pryhod@gmail.com <sana.pryhod@gmail.com>, Pari Esfandiari <pariesfandiari@gmail.com>, bf@ipeos.com <bf@ipeos.com>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Dear all, It's a pity that Frederic received an invitation to the EURALO Board meeting too late and couldn't represent the results of our WG - I hope he can do it tomorrow. Our document stays: *EURALO has established working groups and/[or] processes to effectively plan, prioritize, and address its goals and priorities each year. These processes ensure that EURALO operates efficiently, supporting its purpose and strategic objectives.* This is a very good idea, and working groups/task forces/special committees really can play a significant role in ensuring effectiveness and efficiency of the EURALO. Only if RoP provides a clear, transparent and accountable bottom-up procedure of their establishing, functioning and implementation of their outcomes. Instead we see two different provisions: *4.5. The EURALO Leadership or EURALO Membership may establish ad-hoc Working Groups or particular purpose committees to deal with specific issues.* and *The Chair’s duties include but are not limited to:* *5.2.4. Appointing ad-hoc Working Groups and special purpose committees in consultation with the Membership, as set forth below.* Actually, I didn't find where it was set below. That is why I propose to add to the Article 2 (after 2.2) such text: *EURALO has a clear, transparent and accountable bottom-up process of the establishing of working groups and task forces (WG/TF). Such entities can be initiated at least by one EURALO ALS and supported by EURALO Board decision. In case some EURALO Board members have reasoned and openly stated objections to the establishment of the relevant WG/TF, the issue of its establishment is referred to the Ombudsman and/or put to a vote by all EURALO members.Established EURALO WG/TF is open for participation to all EURALO members, as well as representatives of third parties as observers.Members of EURALO WG/TF elect its moderator, create an email list and establish a schedule of regular online meetings (with the help of ICANN staff).Final documents of each WG/TF are discussed by the EURALO Board, all action items have to be approved by the EURALO Board and communicated to all EURALO members. In case some EURALO Board members have reasoned and openly stated objections to the approval of action items, these action items are referred to the Ombudsman and/or put to a vote by all EURALO members. * I hope for your support and understanding. Kind regards, Oksana