Clause 4.7 of the proposed MOU deals with what is viewed by some NARALO members as an ICANN obligation to perform periodic impact analyses. I disagree. This is not ICANN's obligation; this is an ALAC obligation. Advisory Committees (such as the ALAC) have one primary duty: to "report their findings and recommendations to the Board". This duty requires the Committee to perform research in order to obtain findings that in the aggregate will lead to recommendations. For an example of proper research/scholarship leading to the presentation of findings/recommendations see http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm It is up to the NARALO to set forth their findings regarding how North American users will be impacted by any proposed policy. Just as the constituencies in the GNSO prepare impact statements to be appended to a PDP, so too should the NARALO detail how any proposed policy will impact those within their geographical region. This is the NARALO's job, your job -- not ICANN's job. I would view it as ideal if ICANN would commit to directing its Supporting Organizations to conduct a periodic review of ICANN consensus policies (none of which have a sunset date and many which do require an overhaul), but this is a policy recommendation (not an "obligation" on ICANN's part). ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail