[ massive cross-postings stripped out ] Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote:
I do not think it appropriate that I comment on discussions that then ran on the NARALO list per se (as I believe the autonomy of RALO debate is essential) Cheryl, as you know you were explicitly Cc'd on those discussions. The intent was specifically to attract your input.
but I would like to make clear my extreme personal disappointment that the NARALO (or at least some members thereof) feel that they were not being adequately included or represented Is your regret that we were not being adequately informed, or just that we feel that way?
in the development phase (pre release before the for comment period) of the Joint Statement by their representative on the ALAC GNSO Improvements WG Alan Greenberg;
This is inaccurate. Alan, for all the admirable work he has done in this effort, is NOT our representative. He was never elected by NARALO to ALAC, and as a NomComm appointee bears _zero_ accountability to us. He is from this region but not responsible to it. Thus, to refer to Alan as a "NARALO representative" of any kind is misleading.
I further trust that the hard work put in by this NARALO ALAC representative is not being either unappreciated or ignored by his region (or interpreted that way by others) as a result of that lists deliberations... It is not a statement of disrespect or unappreciation for his effort to be disappointed with the end result. I am extremely hesitant to personalize this issue, since the contents of the document are what is to be presented to the Board with the approval of all of ALAC. It is particularly distressing to see ALSs and RALOs mentioned in the document without their would-be roles discussed with them in advance of the final document.
Certainly we need to note that at this stage we have no similar issues regarding the Joint Statement coming in from the other RALO's whose WG reps I should make very clear also worked in a very hard in positive and committed manner to be broadly representative of their Regions views... As I said, I am aware that discussions of this nature are always difficult. It is especially distressing, given the amount of work put in, that the results are so unsatisfactory and not at all representative of our region's views.
The Chair of NARALO has called (I believe) for an Ad-Hoc regional committee to be formed to draft an opposing document...
This belief is mistaken. I have not called for a special committee to draft a full opposing document-- we don't have time for that. All our ALS and individual members are being asked to give comment to multiple response statements that have been put forward, all of which seek to disassociate NARALO from the Joint Statement. The intent is to reach a NARALO-wide consensus response before the comment period deadline.
I also hope they will place specific points into the current comment collection and collation process, via the Wiki and I assume that the outcome of this regional committee will be very specific in listing where the NARALO's views are at variance or opposition to the Joint Statement.
We will do what we can, given the extremely severe time restraints imposed on us by the authors and the deadline. So far the mailing list and Skype chat have served us well and will have to suffice. If ALAC representatives in this process had wanted a broader, more deliberate and detailed response, giving us more than three days to do it would have been a Really Good Idea.
We should also take the time here to reflect There is a deadline approaching that requires action; time to reflect is a luxury that has not been afforded us. In any case, I take issue that the alternative is "mutually agreeable" because, from our perspective, it clearly is not based on input from multiple NARALO members. Reaction has ranged from outrage to ridicule. Indeed, ALAC's very capacity to act as advocate for the At-Large community has been repeatedly called into question as a result of this process.
- Evan