There are so, so many things wrong with these changes <https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/Revised+NARALO+ROP+for+the+Member...> . The one that stands out is the proposed extension of terms and term limits. We ought to be keeping terms short to prevent stagnation and encourage newer participants to get involved in leadership. Extending terms and term limits just ensures that the same small group of people stay at the top; this inhibits engagement. There are multiple examples of this. There are numerous other bad changes proposed, as well as a slew of change-for-the-sake-of-change cosmetic edits (ie, changing "full" to "complete"). And don't even get me started about the insanity of the proposed participation standards. I have maintained for decades that we should be generous about who we admit and stingy about who we kick out. These new "standards" just serve to further limit the reach of ICANN At-Large to the groups and people who are able to invest substantial time to learn its culture. This decision isn't the end of the world one way or the other. But since we're given a choice to ratify or not, I suggest not. The existing rules have served well and any changes needed should be minor tweaks at best. The proposed changes represent a regression. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56