Hello Roberto,
The point is that what is mandated by the bylaws is the review of ALAC, not the review of the concept of AtLarge. This said, since some of the questions that are part of the charter do imply a review also of the concepts behind ALAC, it is absolutely true that it is impossible to separate the two. For instance, there's a question on whether the ALAC has still a role. Of course, if the approach to AtLarge changes, this change will affect the way this question is answered. But we should not encourage the contractor to start from scratch.
Thank you for the detail. I understand and agree.
I was extremely embarassed in reporting on the status of the GNSO Review. On one hand, there was a fact , that ALAC signed the document proposed by Philip Sheppard, but on the other hand, another fact, that the position of the ALAC had been questioned in discussions in the list. I am sorry that you were put in this position. I am not aware of the situation at other regions, but it was very upsetting at NARALO that there was no awareness or consultation of what was being negotiated until it was too late for us to have input, even though significant changes were made to earlier drafts we had been shown. Even now it is unclear how or even whether ALAC has officially endorsed the final draft it signed.
So, I made both facts known to the Board, but my recommendation would be to have a consensus ALAC position, even if the comment period is over, for documenting exactly what ALAC wants.
It is totally possible that an ALAC consensus position does exist; that does not guarantee that all RALOs are in accord, especially if the RALOs were not consulted for their input. How could each RALO properly consult with its ALAC reps if they were not kept aware of the situation? - Evan