I've updated parag. 16 of our OP to: 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. Thanks Danny for pointing out the parag. concerning de-certification in ICANN bylaws. _________________________________________ 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: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: 16 avril 2007 14:30 To: Evan Leibovitch; Luc Faubert Cc: Thompson, Darlene; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; Nick Ashton-Hart Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Action Items
Luc Faubert wrote: "The Chair could be responsible to determine which ALSes made contributions that are "worthwhile".
Opposed to such powers in the hands of the Chair. The ICANN bylaws provide for the possibility of ALS decertification:
"Decisions to certify or de-certify an At-Large Structure shall require a 2/3 vote of all of the members of the ALAC and shall be subject to review according to procedures established by the Board."
We should have the ALAC publish these decertification procedures. I, for one, certainly haven't seen them anywhere. Nick, can you arrange for these procedures to be published?
--- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> 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_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
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com