Hello Cheryl, [ Note: until consensus has been achieved on a response I am speaking personally ]
RALO's and ALS's were specifically mentioned in the document as a clear mechanism to show what had been expressed in comments to the ALAC statement and in many other for a and discussions as the need to User voice being included... I assume it is not the NARALO desire to not see ALS's or organisations and individuals able to have direct input? We certainly assumed that they did desire inclusion.
Engaging in actual consultation eliminates the need to make assumptions. There is already a method for inclusion of RALO and ALS input into ICANN-wide policy making. It's called the At-Large Advisory Committee. The development of ALAC has been slow, expensive and sometimes painful -- but it is starting to produce results, get its voice, and finally justify its reason for being. At this time I have no interest in re-inventing -- along with similar speed, expense and pain -- a new, parallel process to bring ALS input into GNSO. It is in our mutual interest as members of At-Large to strengthen the respect, policy skills and communications focus of ALAC, not to weaken it. The GNSO does not propose individual universities, IP lawyers, or registrars being represented -- why ALSs? If ALAC has no business having representation on GNSO, then it really has no business existing at all. The irony of a document backed by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to me, astounding.
please note that as with all public comment on ICANN policy interested individuals, ALS's, and RALO's per se, are encouraged to put in individual comment/ responses... We appear to have no choice.
Or -- do we still have the ability to request that ALAC re-consider its support for the document?
These documents are notates as ALAC ones, and we will do our best to be reflective of the widest possible input we receive but they do not in any way limit NARALO or and other 'entity' within or outside of what we class as At-Large responding under separate cover...
My vast preference would be for ALAC to take a more enlightened and representative approach to the document, rather than for NARALO to oppose it.
I believe the NARALO point of view has been well established and continuing in an adversarial manner is unlikely to bring any resolution or benefit to either of us...
Agreed. I would be delighted to have NARALO representatives work with ALAC to help achieve a position that is more in line with what we believe to be the community interest. An adversarial position is only a last resort, brought on by lack of consultation and needlessly tight deadlines. If other options exist I (and I believe other NARALO members who oppose the document) would be more than happy to co-operate and collaborate. - Evan