Wendy Seltzer wrote:
Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement.
May be, but the "this" is in the wrong place. The MOU is the agreement between ALSs and ICANN. It is beyond the scope of the ALS/RALO framework to accommodate individuals. If folks here want to advocate a process for ICANN to solicit public input from individuals, that's an admirable goal. However, it does not belong as a footnote of a document intended to define the ALS framework. This is exactly the kind of diversion that gets in the way of actually doing things of substance. I came into this process fully expecting a RALO to be an assembly of ALSs, nothing more, nothing less, and have neither the need nor the patience to debate whether it _should_ be more or less. Moreover, I have no interest whatsoever in "stepping out" (let alone "way" out) in front of other RALOs, being on a par with them is just fine for now. Let's crawl before trying to run; we haven't even empowered ourselves yet! Thank you for helping me to solidify my position against inclusion of 6.5. There is a place to define personal public input. That place is not within a RALO MOU. And activitst attempts to change the rules on the fly are no less objectionable than what ICANN staff has been claimed to do. - Evan