Evan, I have no objection to the change you propose. Let's see what the others think, _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com <http://www.lucfaubert.com/> www.LucFaubert.com/blog www.isoc.qc.ca <http://www.isoc.qc.ca/> www.ccig.ca <http://www.ccig.ca/> www.maillons.qc.ca <http://www.maillons.qc.ca/> ________________________________ From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 18 avril 2007 12:21 To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Luc Faubert wrote: > 16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections, or does > not contribute a comment on ICANN policy (either directly to ICANN or > through collaboration towards a common NARALO comment) in 12 consecutive > months, a vote of not less than 70% of the North American At-Large > Structures then accredited will rescind its member status within the > NARALO. The Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for > de-certification of that ALS. > > I hope this captures the wishes of all. Sorry, Luc, it does not. I explicitly request the removal of the phrase "either directly to ICANN or" and removal of the brackets. Is a body wants to bypass NARALO and go directly to ICANN that is its prerogative. However, such a body has no business in NARALO if it contributes nothing; its direct submissions do nothing to benefit the collaborative elements that are the RALO's reason for being. As far as the NARALO itself is concerned, a North American based ALS that does everything directly with ICANN is of no more benefit than an ALS that drops out of sight. The RALO process was designed to assist smaller, multi-purpose ALSs to participate, and that means shared ideas between newcomers and old-timers, between big and small. Orgs that shun this process should not be rewarded for such selfishness by being able to claim they're part of a collaborative process. Of course, this begs the question of why a group that consistently bypasses the RALO would want to be associated with it in the first place.) - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGJkWBB6WWYxnsgmwRAoFwAJ9EtH9yDV4SbzicdWkMuIznu+gLNgCfZRTx 1uA0b+80fVYl54skMrvR+K4= =BN2i -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----