Instead of leaving it to the sole discretion of the chair, i would prefer instead to determine participation related to a set of agreed indicators. it is much more objective. A set of possible markers to measure have already been mentioned. Personally, my view is that participation in meetings, online fora (such as this one), outreach, and more importantly - input into ICANN issues and processes would indicate that a group, or individual user is indeed active. A periodical report on "activities" should be made available, not only for those in the NA region - but for ALL the ALS. That way, one could clearly identify regions that are active, and regions where capacity development and further outreach might be useful. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 16-Apr-07, at 11:33 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
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
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP