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