Very true, Beau, Our OP state that once we don't hear from a group for a year and they haven't voted, the chair can simply ask ALAC to deaccredit them. This should be a fairly cut and dried situation. D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 979-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Beau Brendler [beaubrendler@earthlink.net] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 12:48 PM To: Avri Doria; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Please confirm your participation at the NARALO Showcase I really don't see the point in asking Consumers Union for a letter. I created WebWatch, ran it for eight years, it lost its funding and it died when I left. The advocacy staff that did telecommunications policy at Consumers Union is gone. I would not even be able to direct you to anyone there now who would know what an ALS or RALO is. And if I could, it would be August 2189 AD before anyone would write to answer you. According to this note from Matthias: ------------------------------------------------ Hi Beau, We have taken WebWatch off the showcase speaker list. According to the current rules, there are two possible procedures to de-certificate a North-American ALS: 1) A representative of the organisation sends a resignation note 2) NARALO requests the ALAC to decertify an ALS Please inform the At-Large Staff, if NARALO would like to explore one of these options. Kind Regards, Matthias ------------------------------------------------- I already did #1 almost two years ago. The letter went to Nick Ashton-Hart. As for 2), I don't see a point in asking ALAC to de-certify an ALS that no longer exists. Who needs more bureaucratic procedure? -----Original Message-----

From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Sent: Mar 4, 2011 11:21 AM To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Please confirm your participation at the NARALO Showcase

Hi,

Thanks. and Thanks for the pointer - though ti was still a typical ICANN web guessing game to find it.

So it seems that 12 months after notifying them that they automatically were put on inactive status (though you don't call it that) you can just eject them. But since you never notify them, they are on it is indefinitely.

Also other than approving of a renewed OP i don't see any reference to quorum, so it was probably a moot point.

a.

On 4 Mar 2011, at 10:59, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

...

16. When an ALS representative does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the At-Large discussion lists in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS should be notified of the status change and may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next 12 months it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS.

If you look at the very bottom of this string, you will see a link to www.naralo.org that links to all of our organizing documents.

Now, in reality, we have not done these notifications, nor have we requested any de-certifications. I guess its good wording to have in just in case we need to do this.

D

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:39 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Please confirm your participation at the NARALO Showcase

Hi,

Cool, I guess I should have read them. Being lazy, and not knowing where the OP is/are: How do they become inactive? Is there an automatic mechanism or does someone have to do something.

a.

On 4 Mar 2011, at 10:32, Thompson, Darlene wrote:

...

I totally agree with Avri and Evan. I think the only time we would want to actually remove an ALS (other than the reasons that Avri gave) would be if they have totally fallen apart and no longer exist.

Oh, and Avri, we already have this in our OP that inactive ALSs do not count in the quorum calculations.

D

Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca

-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, March 04, 2011 10:27 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Please confirm your participation at the NARALO Showcase

Hi,

One of the mechanisms I have always liked is that someone becomes inactive after a certain number of missed votes.

Once inactive they don't count in the quorum calculations.

And once the become active again, e.g. by voting, they are moved back to the active list and are counted in the next quorum calculation.

Now some people think that someone cannot stay on an inactive list forever. I think that while nothing is forever, it does not really matter how long someone is on a list. Some ALS may have joined because they are genuinely interested but they may just not have the capacity/bandwidth to participate quite yet. So unless there is malfeasance or a resignation, I suggest you leave them on an inactive list indefinitely

a.

On 4 Mar 2011, at 10:07, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

...

Sometime back, Danny suggested that there should be a periodic review of ALSs that were never heard from, never voted or participated in anything.

When it was first suggested, as Chair at the time I answered that it was too premature in NARALO's life to start pruning, that our goal was to be more inclusive rather then spend a lot of energy on de-certifying inactive ALSs (and in our case, individual members).

Eventually, there will indeed be merit to such activity -- for the purposes of achieving quorum for votes, and to disallow anyone from publicising their involvement in NARALO even though they're not involved.

Is it still too soon? Personally, I think so.

In the case of Webwatch, IMO the tidiest thing to do is to ask CU for a letter of withdrawal.

- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------