I'm voting against changes to the NARALO Rules
There are so, so many things wrong with these changes <https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/Revised+NARALO+ROP+for+the+Member...> . The one that stands out is the proposed extension of terms and term limits. We ought to be keeping terms short to prevent stagnation and encourage newer participants to get involved in leadership. Extending terms and term limits just ensures that the same small group of people stay at the top; this inhibits engagement. There are multiple examples of this. There are numerous other bad changes proposed, as well as a slew of change-for-the-sake-of-change cosmetic edits (ie, changing "full" to "complete"). And don't even get me started about the insanity of the proposed participation standards. I have maintained for decades that we should be generous about who we admit and stingy about who we kick out. These new "standards" just serve to further limit the reach of ICANN At-Large to the groups and people who are able to invest substantial time to learn its culture. This decision isn't the end of the world one way or the other. But since we're given a choice to ratify or not, I suggest not. The existing rules have served well and any changes needed should be minor tweaks at best. The proposed changes represent a regression. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
Your opinion has been noted Glenn McKnight, MA Virtual School of Internet Governance Chief Information Officer www.virtualsig.org *YOUR SOURCE FOR INTERNET GOVERNANCE EDUCATION * *Mobile 437-237-4655* On Tue, 13 Sept 2022 at 04:42, Evan Leibovitch via NA-Discuss < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote:
There are so, so many things wrong with these changes <https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/Revised+NARALO+ROP+for+the+Member...> .
The one that stands out is the proposed extension of terms and term limits. We ought to be keeping terms short to prevent stagnation and encourage newer participants to get involved in leadership. Extending terms and term limits just ensures that the same small group of people stay at the top; this inhibits engagement. There are multiple examples of this.
There are numerous other bad changes proposed, as well as a slew of change-for-the-sake-of-change cosmetic edits (ie, changing "full" to "complete").
And don't even get me started about the insanity of the proposed participation standards. I have maintained for decades that we should be generous about who we admit and stingy about who we kick out. These new "standards" just serve to further limit the reach of ICANN At-Large to the groups and people who are able to invest substantial time to learn its culture.
This decision isn't the end of the world one way or the other. But since we're given a choice to ratify or not, I suggest not. The existing rules have served well and any changes needed should be minor tweaks at best.
The proposed changes represent a regression.
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 ------ 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 ------ _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
On Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 4:55 AM Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn@gmail.com> wrote:
Your opinion has been noted
It would have been nice to have such an opinion "noted" *BEFORE* a ratification vote was held. There was NOTHING previously sent to the NARALO mailing list in the past months that suggested that such a major change was coming, and thus would offer ALSs to look at a late draft. According to the wiki <https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Rules+of+Procedure+-+updat...>, August 18-31 was the (unannounced) comment period. REALLY? Even if it had been announced, we are talking about the heart of summer vacation time and expecting to get substantial comments during that time is ... nuts. Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
participants (2)
-
Evan Leibovitch -
Glenn McKnight