[NA-Discuss] Changes to OP

[Eduardo Diaz]

Evan:

I can agree with you to hold-up changes to our core documents for another
six month but if there is no opposition (meaning a lot of discussion is
generated around this), then we should do it now.

Regarding the Spanish language, it was included in the original MOU and
ICANN requested to eliminate the specific languages from it and relinquish
them to the Ops document. I though the language part was to be included as
it was in the original MOU since that was the document that got signed by
everybody. 

Like I said, I did not want to bring this issue during our meeting in San
Juan to help focus in getting the MOU finalized.

Spanish is the language that I use in Puerto Rico and the one that we use to
outreach to other organizations regarding NARALO matters, ICANN, etc. We
need other organizations in Puerto Rico to start getting involved with the
NARALO. However, not all of them understand English that well.

One of the NARALO goals is to increase the membership by 50% in 2008. I am
already working on it. 

-ed


-----Original Message-----
From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org
[mailto:na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan
Leibovitch
Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Thompson, Darlene
Cc: NA Discuss
Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Changes to OP

Thompson, Darlene wrote:

> Further to the thoughts below, I would like to propose that we need to
> make some changes to our Operating Principals.  Things are coming up now
> that we never envisioned when we agreed to the OP.
> [...]
> This is what I would like to suggest, anyways.
>   
My personal response to this is an enthusiastic "yes, but...". Every
single one of Darlene's points is valid, however...

We've barely voted on the original MOU/OP. While it's natural that we
will find flaws and accidental omissions, I am scared to death of being
locked into forever debating our core documents while our actual reasons
for being here (policy, increasing the voice and influence of at-large)
threaten to get sidelined (or at least at a lower priority than they
should be IMO).

Frankly, I was stunned to see that the ALAC -- with a long head start
over NARALO -- is still debating things such as "how to pick a chair" or
"how to conduct a proper vote for its Board rep". THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIVIA that must not consume the group for it to be effective.

To this end, I suggest a semi-annual review of the OP as a standing
agenda item. We collect the various issues that come up, and debate them
every six months as a single set of amendments. This allows for a
(reasonably) timely and regular review of how we work, while giving the
review a fixed context that prevents operational details from dominating
the day-to-day work.

This is just a suggestion, that has worked for me in other groups. In no
way am I belittling Darlene's suggestions, but would like to at least
have the ink dry on the existing documents before we start changing
them. A little forced pause between OP modifications may even help help
the debate, by forcing extra thought on changes that may be too hasty or
based on short-term problems.

If there are issues that MUST be dealt with immediately, let's do it.
I'm not convinced that anything on Darlene's list can't wait until a
review. (If having Spanish as an official language was time-sensitive,
it should have been raised in the original doc.) Let's try to make the
existing OP work before demonstrating that it needs fixing.

- Evan


_______________________________________________
NA-Discuss mailing list
NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.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