I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution. I know we don't want to be structure-heavy, but what about a bicameral system: one "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals, as described; the other a gathering of individuals (the individual members of ALSs and anyone else who wants to join)? It would be entirely possible that the organizational "house" would tend toward consensus, while the individual "house" brought out the diversity of individuals' interests. --Wendy Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
1. I've updated the text for parag. 16 on de-certification of ALSes to:
16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next year it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
There's no more voting to make things simpler -- and we give the guys a chance to repent!
2. Any other suggestions for changes/improvements to our OP?
As for me, the only thing I don't see in there is how we will select the Secretariat. Should we put something in the OP concerning this point?
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/