Alan Greenberg wrote:
Do remember that we are not talking about selecting a person to sit on the GNSO council. We are talking about how one populates a new User Constituency with the larger NonCom Stakeholders Group. That Constituency, by whatever arcane rules it defines, then select N members to sit on the GNSO Council.
Then we're back to the re-invention of ALAC that I'm trying to prevent. Maybe our positions are not as easy to reconcile as I thought. ALAC *is* the representative body of the end-user constituency.
I did see (and comment on) a more recent version of the statement just before I left, but it was not my place to re-distribute it.
Well, then whose place was it? The witholding of early drafts from our ability to comment, is a significant factor in the backlash that led to the original NARALO dissociation statement.
I strongly feel that they ability to talk and vote without being beholden to any specific group is valuable (and I am talking mainly from my experience on the GNSO) *IF* good people are appointed.
Talk, yes. Vote, no. I see no value in voting without responsibility to the community that ALAC supposedly serves.
And you have forgotten the Consumer Protection Constituency and the BetterBusinessBureau Constituency and the Association of Local Computer Clubs Constituency and ....
Those are all potential ALSs, which means they already have a place in At-Large without needing to create more bureaucracy. - Evan