Hi all,
 
I am quite happy with the MOU as is stands now with one exception.  That would be Wendy's second revision:
 
[4.8 If the North American RALO, ALSs, or individuals express formal concerns about any ICANN issues, the ICANN Board should fully consider those concerns and clearly explain how it will address them.]
 
I just can't imagine ICANN agreeing to something like that when it states "any ICANN issues".  I realize the spirit of what Wendy is trying to accomplish, and agree with it, but I can also see that this could gridlock ICANN responding to petty complaints (who is to say what is formal and what isn't?) and not accomplishing its mandate.
 
Is it possible to re-word this somehow?  Just a suggestion.
 
Darlene


From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Bret Fausett
Sent: Fri 6/15/2007 10:55 AM
To: NA Discuss
Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU in San Juan (Action Items)

Dear ALAC Colleagues,

As the San Juan meeting approaches, we should turn our attention to 
finalizing the MOU with ICANN.

        Current Draft: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
        (newest revisions, for discussion, in bold typeface)

By its terms, the MOU is between ICANN and the North American At 
Large Structures that choose to sign it (Section 1). I point this out 
so you know that it is possible to participate in the ICANN process 
as an ICANN At Large Structure, participate in the NARALO, but choose 
not to sign the MOU. Nevertheless, we should strive for a MOU that a 
substantial majority of currently accredited ALSs would be willing to 
sign and which we believe would be generally acceptable to future At 
Large Structures from North America.

*If* we can find agreement on the language of the draft MOU, then we 
will have an official signing ceremony in San Juan and move forward 
with our contemplated election of ALAC representatives from North 
America. As we've discussed on the list previously, this is an 
aspirational goal, not a hard deadline, but I am certain that with 
work over the next week on the list we will be able to find consensus 
around common language for the MOU.

Here is what I would ask everyone to do in preparation for San Juan:

(a) if you don't already have it, seek authority from your 
organization to sign the MOU on its behalf, if we can agree to terms, 
in San Juan. Even if you are not going to San Juan, we can still 
arrange to have your organization sign the MOU by mail and facsimile 
(my understanding is that repersentatives from all organizations will 
be present with the exception of CAUCE, CAUCE Canada, Alberta 
Community Network Association (ACNA), and People Who). Unlike our 
ratification vote, in which each organization had two votes, we only 
need one signature from each ALS.

(b) review the current draft and consider whether you would be 
willing to sign on the current terms. Is that language in the draft 
that would prevent you from signing? Is there language that must be 
in the draft in order for you to sign? If so, please let us know as 
soon as possible so we can carry this back to our own organizations 
and have a discussion around it.

(c) let me know by email bfausett **at** internet.law.pro, or on 
list, whether you think the current draft is something your 
organization will agree to approve in San Juan. This is just a straw 
poll, but I'd like to get a read as soon as possible about how close 
we are to having an acceptable draft.

Questions and discussion welcome.

       Bret



_______________________________________________
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