[NA-Discuss] Danny Younger's new blog

Tue Oct 19 17:05:35 UTC 2010

at least, I think it's new:

http://icannology.blogspot.com

Anybody been reading it? It's pretty good. Kind of the perfect format for Danny.

By the way, I'm shooting my mouth off about ICANN over at ThinkerNet -- please feel free to jump in and argue, disagree, etc.

http://www.internetevolution.com/messages.asp?piddl_msgthreadid=234762&piddl_msgid=292055#msg_292055

-----Original Message-----
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Sent: Oct 11, 2010 11:58 PM
>To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson at gov.nu.ca>, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
>Cc: "na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WTF?
>
>The situation is not that simple. Prior to the changes, section 5 of 
>the Operating Principles (OP) started with:
>
>"The governance of the NARALO will be exercised by a General 
>Assembly, formed by 2 representatives of each member ALS and 2 
>members from among the unaffiliated individuals." In practice, we 
>have used just 1 representative per ALS and Unaffiliated Members, but 
>according to that Unaffiliated Members were represented in General 
>Assembly votes. The revised OP changes that 2 to become 1 in line 
>with our existing practices.
>
>However, section 15 says:
>
>"These Operating Principles will take effect when adopted by not less 
>than 70% of the active North American At-Large Structures. They may 
>be amended at any time by an affirmative vote of not less than 70% of 
>active North American At-Large Structures."
>
>So although the Unaffiliated Members are represented in votes of the 
>General Assembly, they were NOT deemed to participate in revision of 
>the Rules of Procedure. We have always referred to the Unaffiliated 
>Members as a "Virtual ALS", but the OP never included such a 
>reference. I was not an active participant in writing the original 
>OP, but I would like to think that this was an inadvertent omission 
>and not deliberate. If I had noticed this during the OP revision 
>process, I certainly would have raised the issue.
>
>I can't speak for why staff reported the vote as they did, but based 
>on these rules, it would appear that the error was in including the 
>Unaffiliated Members in the poll, and not how the results were reported.
>
>I would suggest that we fix this with due haste.
>
>In parallel, we also need to look at our Rules of Procedure. These 
>replicate the "2 per ALS" and there are a number of other places 
>where they conflict with the OP.
>
>Alan
>
>At 11/10/2010 11:21 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I do not believe that Beau put in in an SOI to become the "vote" of 
>>the unaffilated members nor do I believe that they voted for him to 
>>be their "voice".   This is why we entrenched this position into the 
>>changes to the RoP.  We need to have more formal votes for this 
>>position.  I do not believe that our RoP gave a vote to the 
>>unaffiliated voice prior to the vote so this is now in force but was 
>>not before.
>>
>>That is my understanding of it, anyways.
>>
>>D
>>
>>Darlene A. Thompson
>>CAP Administrator
>>Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP
>>P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910
>>Iqaluit, NU  X0A 0H0
>>Phone:  (867) 975-5631
>>Fax:  (867) 975-5610
>>E-mail:  dthompson at gov.nu.ca
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: na-discuss-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch
>>Sent: Mon 10/11/2010 11:10 PM
>>To: Beau Brendler
>>Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WTF?
>>
>>
>>
>>On 11 October 2010 19:38, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > This has probably been explained before, but:
>> >
>> > Please note that Beau Brendler participated in the vote on behalf of the
>> > unaffiliated members. While his vote is visible on the above URL, it is not
>> > counted towards quorum as according to rule 15, an affirmative vote of not
>> > less than 70% of active North American At-Large Structures is required to
>> > amend the NARALO Operating Principles.
>> >
>> > What does that mean? Let's not pretend to give unaffiliated members a vote
>> > (in this particular case, a yes) if it's not going to be counted.
>> >
>>
>>
>>Beau, I don't know why it was not counted and will check into it. If you
>>participated in the vote then your vote counts and is part of the quorum. I
>>apologize on behalf of the process that may have inadvertently missed your
>>mention.
>>
>>Of course, as you and I both know, the purpose of this vote was to codify
>>and formalize what had until been an informal and not-fully-recognised role
>>of unaffiliated members and their representatives within NARALO and
>>At-Large.
>>
>>- Evan
>>------
>>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 <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
>>------
>