Personally, I think that this just adds way too much complexity for what appears to be only one individual at this time. I am definitely opposed to having every little thing used as an excuse to slow things down. I say lets discuss this when we get more individuals. Right now it would just be constructing something that may never get used. Darlene Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 1:50 AM To: Bret Fausett Cc: 'NA Discuss' Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Bicameral NARALO
For a bicameral RALO, what threshhold would you put on it for the "individual" side to become effective? I don't think it would work if we had only, say, 5, 10, or even 50 authenticated individuals. 100? 500? More?
I'd say at least as large as the smallest ALS. I do like the idea of a bicameral RALO, and I'd like to take time to consider it, even if it means risking that we miss having a PR event in San Juan. R's, John _______________________________________________ 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 Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct