Wendy, I'm intrigued. How would we implement voting or consensus polling in such a context? When we look at the model we're going for, I guess all policy discussions will happen on our Discuss list which is open to all, individuals and non-certified orgs included. This gives everybody direct input into policy discussions within NARALO. Activities reserved to certified ALS reps and the 2 reps for individuals are : - voting for the Chair, - choosing the 2 ALAC reps, - setting up task forces, - adopting/changing the OP and MOU. Is this not reasonable? _________________________________________ 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: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 avril 2007 17:08 To: Luc Faubert Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALS de-certification & final round on OP
I'd still like to see more room for individuals. To say that all the unaffiliated individuals equal just one ALS in the GA seems to discourage their direct contribution.
I know we don't want to be structure-heavy, but what about a bicameral system: one "house" of ALS reps and just 2 individuals, as described; the other a gathering of individuals (the individual members of ALSs and anyone else who wants to join)? It would be entirely possible that the organizational "house" would tend toward consensus, while the individual "house" brought out the diversity of individuals' interests.
--Wendy
Luc Faubert wrote:
Hello all,
1. I've updated the text for parag. 16 on de-certification of ALSes to:
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. The ALS may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next year it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.
There's no more voting to make things simpler -- and we give the guys a chance to repent!
2. Any other suggestions for changes/improvements to our OP?
As for me, the only thing I don't see in there is how we will select the Secretariat. Should we put something in the OP concerning this point?
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/