Hi, I don't want to speak for Wendy but as I recall that is exactly why she was proposing a bicameral idea, where the accredited ALS's would act as the "Senate" and *all* unaffiliated individual users would all be in the "House." The House would elect 2 "speakers" (if memory serves...) who would take two seats in the Senate with the accredited ALS's. (I'm sorry if I have not gotten this right.) Would it really matter if every unaffiliated Internet user in NA joined the "House"--including lobbyists--etc? I don't know why--because in the end the House only has 2 votes in the Senate. On the other hand, is there anything to stop anyone --including lobbyists-- from joining every accredited ALS? It seems like that would be a better route. That way, they could certainly multiply their influence, and every ALS gets two votes. But I don't want to be accused of trying to hold anything up. JP unaffiliated Internet user At 9:27 AM -0400 5/28/07, Thompson, Darlene recently said:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C7A12B.E653E425"
I agree.
All ALSs go through a process of "approval". What process do individuals have to go through to ensure that they are lobbyists or others that would be unattractive to our group. Unless we create some kind of umbrella group for the individuals that would act as a pseudo-ALS and they could police their own membership (this has been suggested before but I'm not sure by whom). We need some kind of wording clarifying what we would like this to look like.
D