Luc Faubert wrote:
Wendy,
We are 2 days away from the vote to ratify our Operating Principles. I don't think it is realistic to hope that we will agree on a revision of the basic format of NARALO in time for people to re-read, discuss and approve the OP for Friday. And if there were debate, that vote could be postponed. If there's no interest, it need not be.
Back to your suggestion...
NA-Discuss is open to all, so anybody (member of an ALS or not) can join in the discussions on policy. Everybody is welcome, provided they abide by our Code of Conduct. You know this already, so I suppose you are suggesting this new format to give more formal influence to individuals over other NARALO affairs.
I asked you the following on 04.19 but received no answer: Sorry, I've been travelling and missed some messages. Here are some thoughts:
...and how would responsibilities be divided? Which of the forum or the GA would:
- vote for the Chair, Each should have its own chair; the two bodies can jointly select a president - choose the 2 ALAC reps, each choose one - set up task forces, either could - adopt/change the OP and MOU, both must have consensus - achieve consensus on policy comments? either may submit comments; both must reach consensus if it's to be in the name of NARALO.
-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute 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/