I agree with you, John. My point was to add to your criterion the cases where ALSes contributed to NARALO comments (assuming ALSes eventually agree on something and NARALO produces a comment) without necessarily sending ICANN a comment in their own name. So we would be asking our ALSes to: - either contribute at least one comment to ICANN or contribute at least once to a global comment NARALO sends to ICANN in every 12-month period, - not abstain from voting in 3 consecutive NARALO 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: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: 16 avril 2007 12:48 To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Absolutely opposed, to anything requiring a judgement call.
Indeed, this is a swamp. That's why I suggested something that can be counted mechanically, like submissions when ICANN requests comments on proposals. Submissions need not be very long. One or two sentences saying "the current situation is fine, and the proposed changes would make it worse" are far more useful than most three page rants.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atl arge-lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP