Evan, Here's the complete proposal that I sent to the list in response to John's suggestion, which I hope will answer your question, as it documents specific criteria the Chair would use to decide: Policy contributions of ALSes can take 2 forms: - contributions to NARALO positions, - independent comments to ICANN (the sort you refer to, John, for which I think the evaluation method you propose is good [we could ask orgs that send independent comments to cc the NA-DISCUSS list]). An easily measurable criterion could thus be worthwhile activity on our NA-DISCUSS list in the last 12 months. The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile", examples of activity that could be considered worthwhile being at least one instance of: - a cc to the list of a comment sent directly to ICANN, - semantic contributions to discussions/positions, as opposed to just approve/disapprove. We could require both conditions for ALSes to have the right to vote: - having made at least one worthwhile contribution on the list in the last 12 months, - having voted at least once in the last 3 elections. _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 16 avril 2007 11:34 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Luc Faubert wrote:
"The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
I am accountable to my group's membership for the quality of our participation -- not to ICANN, and certainly not to this sub-group that -- so far -- can't demonstrate competence at even determining a meeting site (a month before the meeting is supposed to take place!).
Am I the only one to see the irony of a group whose participants complain about the arbitrariness of ICANN staff power, yet have no problem assigning similarly arbitrary authority to the group itself? Two wrongs do NOT make a right.
Quanitify what you consider "worthwhile" or leave such a provision out. If you can't quanitify it, I can't trust it.
- Evan