[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits

[Evan Leibovitch]

Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>
> First of all, what you call the revision proposal of the GNSO is not the
> proposal of the whole GNSO, but of a part of it.
It is reasonable that existing NomComm members of GNSO would not want to
see their privilege removed, so unanimous consent within the current
body was never to be expected. I am simply pleased to see it as a
majority recommendation.

Similarly, I don't expect the NomComms to go silently from ALAC either.

> Anyway, the main rason for my reply is a different one, and is related to
> ALAC.[...]
> Now, that all RALOs are up and running, it is, IMHO, appropriate to ask the
> question on whether all 15 ALAC members should be nominated by the ALSes,
> via the RALOs. That would not exclude, still IMHO, the possibility of having
> some "additional" members, maybe without voting rights, tha the NomCom could
> appoint to cover specific situations that are not covered by the normal
> process.
This is exactly what I am suggesting. The ALAC will always benefit from
outside advice and assistance.  Even now it has the capacity to appoint
special advisors of unlimited numbers. However, internal leadership and
direction should come exclusively from accountable members.

- Evan