Thanks Bret. I agree with your first points. I have questions on point 3. Your proposal to use rough consensus is interesting--and doable, I think. True, ALS's will represent vastly varying constituencies and equal representation for each ALS may not be ideal (although the same dynamics apply to ISOC Chapters and they nonetheless have equal votes in electing chapter-elected trustees on ISOC's board), but shouldn't the RALO have the final say in electing their ALAC reps? Rather than bringing in NomCom in dispute resolution, couldn't the Chair be responsible for this, as is the case in IETF working groups? I would trust the Chair to take into account the RALO's interests more than NomCom, and knowing that the Chair will decide if no consensus is reached acts as a stimulant for participants to reach consensus. Also, if we're going to use rough consensus to choose the ALAC reps, why do we vote for the Chair? Another point is participation of individual users. I had found it interesting in LACRALO's OP that they had allowed for individual user participation and think we should do the same. But should they vote on ALAC reps and the Chair nomination? LACRALO does not allow individual users to vote. If we allow them to vote, we must find a way to balance their vote with the ALS vote. What do others think of this? _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting GFI Solutions +1 514 236 5129 www.GFISolutions.com www.LucFaubert.com
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett [mailto:bfausett@internet.law.pro] Sent: 16 janvier 2007 15:13 To: Luc Faubert; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO documents
Thanks for doing this, Luc. I like this in form and substance very much. A few comments...
On http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
1. I deleted the parenthetical in Para. 4 which read "(official languages of Canada and the USA)." Although English predominates, the United States doesn't actually have an "official" language. We've seen various attempts in recent years, both at the state and national level, to declare English the official language, but they have been largely rejected as xenophobic and anti-immigrant. In elections, you can request a ballot in Spanish, and most .GOV websites also are available in Spanish (see, http://www.usa.gov/).
2. We probably need someone to moderate the discussions and be an official point person for receipt and distribution of correspondence and announcements, so I've created a "Chair" of the General Assembly, who will be elected annually by majority vote.
2. I added new language to Paragraph 10 and a new Paragraph 11 to state that new ALAC members will be seated at the close of ICANN's annual meeting and that an annual 60 day call for Statements of Interest should precede the selection.
3. On voting for ALAC seats, I think we shouldn't. As I see it, the problem is that we will have so many organizations, of varying membership sizes, with vastly differing interests in ICANN that "one organization, one vote" won't necessarily be fair. We've talked about this in ALAC previously, and I floated a proposal that would require the NARALO to select ALAC seats by rough consensus. If consensus cannot be found, the NARALO then forwards the names of all finalists with support, including a description of the candidates' respective levels of support within the NARALO, to the ICANN Nominating Committee for final selection. This is not perfect, but I think it's preferable to elections in this context.
Bret