At 12:36 PM -0400 5/28/07, Mr. Robert Guerra recently said:
Jean:
using parliamentary analogies might make
things too complex. a few comments:
* The reference to "senate"
in Canada has a different connotation, as that body here is appointed
and not elected by the public. So for me, a senate would not be the
most representative..
* A question .. Would the
"senate" be able to act alone - or as is the case normally,
require that all actions and initiatives also be endorsed by the other
chamber (the house) before the are approved. With this approach, there
could be stalemates is often happens (both in Canada, US, and
elsewhere).
Ah. Well, in the US we elect both our senators and house
representatives. Sorry for the cultural confusion.
That's probably why Wendy called it bicameral instead (Wendy,
this is your idea, pls jump in) is really
1. Accredited ALS's (2 votes per ALS)
2. The Rest of Us (2 votes)
Let me suggest a slight variant that, i
hope could be adopted...
NA "unaffiliated" users be
created as a "virtual" umbrella organization , one
that has ALS status as well as a set of chairs that oversee admin and
other requests. There would be two chairs, who would be elected by
the NA "unaffiliated" to sit in the NA regional
assembly.
sounds fine
- Individual who is interested
in joining NA at large would have thus two options:
- (1) Can join an organization that has
been ALS certified. The organization in question has their own
procedures as to how to join, etc..
- (2) instead of joining an
affiliated organization, and individual can contact the NA
"unaffiliated" ALS.
Actually, there are 3 options-- a minimum of two people can join
together and can create another ALS-applicant if they want. ALAC isn't
getting out of the ALS-blessing business, and I don't believe it has
ever happened that an ALS with individual members (note plural) has
been turned down.
At this point , there are two
options:
1. Have a set of criteria on who can/can
not joing the virtual group. If criteria exist:
- Application (that would have to be
drafted) would be reviewed by NA "unaffiliated" ALS
chairs (s), who would process and/or approve the application request.
If approved the regional RALO, ALAC and
ICANN staff would be notified that individual is now a full member of
the NA "unaffiliated" ALS
The ALS chairs and the virtual NA
"unaffiliated" group would of course be able to change
and/or revise their working methods as they see fit. What I am
suggesting is a possible first version - that would be subject to
review in a year.
With criteria, the virtual group would be
less vulnerable to capture by interested parties
Interested parties I'm quite sure would form their own ALS. I am
surprised ALAC hasn't seen an application yet from, say, Focus on the
Family-- since they were so vocal about the .xxx TLD. Maybe they just
don't realize yet that they could be an ALS and get 2 votes in the
NARALO.
2. Establish no criteria, let anyone
join.
- Anyone could join the virtual
group.
- the group would run the risk of
being capture by interested parties
having been involved in international
processes with non profits (ie. civil society), I would much prefer
option 1. Though it creates a bit of structure, it is light and would
make it harder for the group to be captured.
those are my comments.
regards,
Robert
---
Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.org>
Managing Director,
Privaterra
Tel +1 416 893 0377
The only criteria that really matter are that the person who
wants to join is a real person and has a legal address somewhere in
North America. How do your organizations test for those things--
perhaps unaffiliated could do the same? I'm sure this is not a new
problem.
JP