Minutes of Tele-Conference
April 27, 2007
NARALO Telcon
Attending: Darlene
Thompson (ALS), Evan Leibovitz (ALS), Luc Faubert (ALS), Gareth Shearman
(applicant), Brett Fausett (ALS), Jean Polly (unaffiliated user), Gerry
Singleton (ALS), Randy Glass (ALS)
Brett Fausett moderating as Nick Ashton-Hart was
missing.
Meeting started at 3:10.
Brett:
We are presently voting on the OP and COC on the NA ALS list. Each accredited ALS has two votes. Darlene: So far 9 have voted with 2 against. Brett: We haven’t set a final date for votes
but we should leave it open for about a week. Luc: We need 70% for quorum but two have not
been participating much so this might be difficult. Brett: We can’t really act as a group until we
have a “group”. We need to ratify
the OP and then sign the MOU.
Brett: We need to have a
procedure for un-certifying an unresponsive ALS. Luc: The OP needs to be approved by 70% of
the active ALSs as per the OP.
General: There are several
ways to classify as “inactive” – postings on the list, registration on the Wiki,
try to contact them and get their feedback. Luc: He has definitely done outreach to all
to try to get them involved.
Nobody on this call has voted “no” to the OP or
COC. So far, we have two
unaffiliated (individual) users who have submitted their candidacy on the list
as unaffiliated user voting delegates (Jean & Wendy). The two “no” votes that we have raised
concerns over the COC that we all pretty much agree on so how can we agree to
vote on the amendment? Perhaps we
should just wait and see how the voting goes. If we get 70% yeses, then it’s a moot
point. If after Tuesday night, we
do not have 70%, then maybe we need to make the changes and then
revisit.
Why are we allowing 2 reps per ALS? Is it done that way in other
regions? It allows unaffiliated individuals to have 2 votes and it
also allows for differing opinions coming out of one organization. If an ALS is divided internally, they
can then express that through their voting process.
Since we cannot discuss this with the dissenters,
there probably isn’t much more to talk about. In regards to the bicameral structure,
we should try to get set up as best we can right now and then revisit later (by
following the ICANN model for now).
Let’s demonstrate that we can get the basics down before we try something
new.
Randy:
Lets consolidate the wording on the COC so that we can all agree on it
and then also add some provisional statements into the OP to state that we are
not opposed to more individual representation and will re-visit. Luc: Lets make the changes to the COC right
away if we all agree and then re-vote.
Jean:
The reason why the “individual” thing is important is because it’s
revisited in the MOU (as to whether they are allowed or not) so we should get
this nailed down as soon as possible.
The code of conduct is binding but the consequences
are not. Some may find this to be a
little weird. The main purpose
behind this is so that people know that there is a code of conduct and
*hopefully* we never have to use it.
Should there be some consultation by the chair to the group if there is a
perception of abuse, et al?
The ratification of our MOU is scheduled for May
11. We need to have closure on our
OP before moving onto the MOU.
ICANN legal will not approve the MOU with the two last paragraphs in
there so we will need to revisit/eliminate them. Although there are some battles that we
really need to fight, this isn’t one of them.
Luc: We
could push to have 5 new voting board members (one from each region)
representing individual users.
Brett: We will be able to
vote on a member of the nominating committee once we get formed. The present person serving has been
doing so for the maximum amount of time so we will have to find somebody
else.
We need to have a clear picture of who does what in
ICANN and who has voting privileges and who is simply an observer. We need to ask ICANN to prepare some
kind of orientation document for all ALSs. Luc will post a chart on the
composition of the ICANN board.
We need to give ICANN information as to who from each
ALS is going to
We need to get “pending” ALSs approved. Apparently there will be a vote on this
next week.