Clause 4.7 of the proposed MOU deals with what is

viewed by some NARALO members as an ICANN obligation

to perform periodic impact analyses.  I disagree. 

This is not ICANN's obligation; this is an ALAC

obligation.

Advisory Committees (such as the ALAC) have one

primary duty:  to "report their findings and

recommendations to the Board".  This duty requires the

Committee to perform research in order to obtain

findings that in the aggregate will lead to

recommendations.

For an example of proper research/scholarship leading

to the presentation of findings/recommendations see

http://www.icann.org/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm

It is up to the NARALO to set forth their findings

regarding how North American users will be impacted by

any proposed policy.  Just as the constituencies in

the GNSO prepare impact statements to be appended to a

PDP, so too should the NARALO detail how any proposed

policy will impact those within their geographical

region.  

This is the NARALO's job, your job -- not ICANN's job.

I would view it as ideal if ICANN would commit to

directing its Supporting Organizations to conduct a

periodic review of ICANN consensus policies (none of

which have a sunset date and many which do require an

overhaul), but this is a policy recommendation (not an

"obligation" on ICANN's part).

____________________________________________________________________________________

No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go 

with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail 

_______________________________________________

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