The last sentence is necessary to prevent ALSes being in limbo if the following happens: - an ALS loses its active status and voting rights because of non-participation, - the vote of active ALSes does not reach the 70% threshold to revoke the inactive ALS's membership within NARALO. In this case, we need a way to reinstate their active member status and voting rights. _________________________________________ Luc Faubert Conseiller en gouvernance TI et en gestion du changement / IT governance and change management consulting +1 514 236 5129 www.LucFaubert.com www.isoc.qc.ca www.ccig.ca www.maillons.qc.ca
-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: 18 avril 2007 14:31 To: Luc Faubert Cc: Bret Fausett; na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification
Luc Faubert wrote:
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. A vote of not less than 70% of the active North American At-Large Structures will rescind its member status within the NARALO and the Chair will then submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. If the vote is not conclusive, then the At-Large Structure regains its active member status within NARALO.
Your English is fine, Luc. I have no problem with the last sentence, but it just seems redundant. Otherwise I'm fine with it as-is.
- Evan