Nick Ashton-Hart wrote:

To remind everyone of the current situation, we have an ALS applicant (Telecommunities Canada) who is waiting on a decision on their application, which is more overdue every day, and that decision is waiting on ALAC concluding review of the proposal, subject to amendments of course, on how to evaluate applications for At-Large especially in certain circumstances. The decision also affects another application, Communica.ch, which is of long standing based upon the very same issues.

I respectfully submit that we should vote now on pending applications, before addressing substantive revisions to our admission criteria. If staff would provide their advice on whether or not the application meets the criteria ALAC has previously set out -- whether the organization is run by and for the benefit of individual Internet users -- we are prepared to vote. I appreciate your suggestions about changing policy, but until ALAC changes the policy, we should abide by the one we have (which I think sensible). I move that we call a vote on TC immediately.

These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not deal with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility.

Fine. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: I will see who from NCUC is attending Lisbon this time - in view of the packed policy schedule of the Tuesday meeting though I would suggest that we simply extend that meeting from 1800 - 1900 if the NCUC are amenable to meeting during that time. It is important to say, though, that the ALAC's admission of applicants and the criteria which it uses to decide admission actually do not have anything to do with NCUC or any other constituency - and vice versa. If they were meant to do so the Bylaws would provide for that to be the case, and they do not. As has been pointed out, those who qualify for membership in both are entirely welcome at present to join them both if they wish to do so so - as a result of which there cannot be any competition for members. That would only be possible if membership in one constituency precluded membership in the other. There are some fundamental differences. NCUC is a regular constituency of the GNSO, and as such it has a vote in the Name Council, and a scope that is related to Domain Names. ALAC is an advisory committee to the Board, and as such it has a Liaison to the Board (non-voting) but a scope that is not limited to the DNS. I might be wrong, but I haven't noticed substantial overlapping in practice, i.e. I am not aware of many organizations that had the doubt on whether join one or the other, I would like to know if somebody has practical cases to show me. This was, by the way, also the subject of my conversation with Ynternet.org. As to you second very good point, the larger context is important as you say - however, the larger context is a shifting sand with the advent of the ALAC review. Addressing the functions and and positions of the two constituencies is important, but is an entirely separate issue from deciding on written criteria for evaluating membership applications for THIS constituency, since, again, organisations are free to join both. Already with the GNSO review we need to tackle this item, as the LSE has identified the need for a different constituency structure for the GNSO. Regardless on whether this is going to happen or not, the discussion will have to address this. To remind everyone of the current situation, we have an ALS applicant (Telecommunities Canada) who is waiting on a decision on their application, which is more overdue every day, and that decision is waiting on ALAC concluding review of the proposal, subject to amendments of course, on how to evaluate applications for At-Large especially in certain circumstances. The decision also affects another application, Communica.ch, which is of long standing based upon the very same issues. 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. These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not deal with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility.

From previous conversation with the Ombudsman, it seems that we should at least send a letter to the applicants explaining why there is a delay, apologize for it, and give a reasonable time frame for processing. Also, why don't you simply contact the Ombudsman, explain the situation, and ask for advice? I am sure that Frank would love to be involved as advisor in an early stage rather than have to process complaints when it is too late.

Cheers, Roberto