[NA-Discuss] Ramping up for the election - General Procedures

[Thompson, Darlene]

It is also worthwhile to note that active status of an ALS is not tied strictly to voting as has been claimed below.  Rule 16 of our Operating Principles clearly state, "...when an ALS representative does not vote in three consecutive NARALO elections OR does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the At Large discussion lists in 12 consecutive months...".  So, voting is most certainly not the only criteria, nor should it be.

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) 975-5610
dthompson at gov.nu.ca
________________________________________
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan at telly.org]
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2013 3:52 PM
To: NARALO Discussion List
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Ramping up for the election - General Procedures

Every few years we go through this distraction. Someone - and usually
someone who is not themselves otherwise putting any effort into in at-large
- goes on an "investigative" spree and whines about ALSs that shouldn't be.

Let's remember that outreach and community building is still a challenge
within ICANN; we ought to be quick to accept and slow to discharge. We
certainly need to decertify truly dormant ALSs as a matter of keeping
quorum, but there is too much real work to be done on ICANN policy to spend
our volunteer time engaging in inquisitions. An active and engaged ALS with
five members is preferable to a silent one of a hundred.

- Evan (via mobile)
On 2013-06-01 2:53 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
wrote:

> Alan, Eduardo,
>
> > I will not comment on the specific cases ...
>
> I picked two cases because I presume that each "ALS" has represented
> itself as a qualified elector and has cast a ballot of record in an
> election (the nuance here being that where "rough consensus" is
> allowed there may be no act for which any test of eligibility exists).
>
> I've no idea if the third example has represented itself as a
> qualified elector and has cast a ballot of record in a recent election.
>
> > We should bring up this item in the next NARALO conference call (if not
> before).
>
> I'll write Staff as the original, and enduring due diligence duty
> stated in the 2007 MoU at 5 f), lies there. I'm not concerned if, in
> the hypothetical "worst case", all current ALSs are decertified, as
> the 2007 MoA creates both ALSs memberships and Unaffiliated
> memberships, so the RALO will continue to exist, independent of any
> certification review outcome or the voluntary surrenders of ALS
> memberships. I certainly hope this will not be the outcome, if only
> because I would prefer there exist, not just the theory of user groups
> organized to answer the conditions of the 2007 MoU, but at least one
> example of that in fact.
>
> Whether addressing the question of ALS decertification yields an
> outcome from Staff procedure or from RALO procedure. or both,
> eligibility to vote in the 2013 elections for the MoA 5 g) roles may
> be determined before, or after, the election results are adopted by
> the NARALO General Assembly.
>
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
>
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at 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 at atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss

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