Hong: This is precisely what is envisaged by the proposal on how to handle these matters which was put forward for ALAC's review before the March teleconference, and which is scheduled for discussion at the Sunday ALAC meeting in Lisbon. On 21/03/07, Hong Xue <hongxueipr@gmail.com> wrote:
On the long run, why should not the RALOs themselves define their acceptance procedure, with ALAC only ratifying (and in this case I would agree that it should be default = YES). The problem is that different RALOs will have different approaches, also to keep the flexibility of the local situation. For instance, in Europe we have a fairly typical case which is the European umbrella organization for national organizations (remember CECUA?). As of today, the umbrella organization is not permitted to join. However, the very reason for having an umbrella organization is to avoid duplication of effort (and cost) by national bodies. Another element of difference is individual membership, which will be allowed for EURALO but not for other RALOs (at least, this is how it looks as of today). It would not make sense to have the ALAC to have to vote on each individual application.
Through reviewing the draft MOU for all RALOs, I find that RALOs will soon play a big role in ALS applications. At least, they will soon take over the task of "regional advice" and decide whether to grant "provisional status" to the applicants. In that case, a RALO may recommend ALAC to approve a *umbralla organization*. So, even if RALO would be functioning, ALAC would have to sort out an answer first.
Hong
-- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart