Alan, Eduardo,
I will not comment on the specific cases ...
I picked two cases because I presume that each "ALS" has represented itself as a qualified elector and has cast a ballot of record in an election (the nuance here being that where "rough consensus" is allowed there may be no act for which any test of eligibility exists). I've no idea if the third example has represented itself as a qualified elector and has cast a ballot of record in a recent election.
We should bring up this item in the next NARALO conference call (if not before).
I'll write Staff as the original, and enduring due diligence duty stated in the 2007 MoU at 5 f), lies there. I'm not concerned if, in the hypothetical "worst case", all current ALSs are decertified, as the 2007 MoA creates both ALSs memberships and Unaffiliated memberships, so the RALO will continue to exist, independent of any certification review outcome or the voluntary surrenders of ALS memberships. I certainly hope this will not be the outcome, if only because I would prefer there exist, not just the theory of user groups organized to answer the conditions of the 2007 MoU, but at least one example of that in fact. Whether addressing the question of ALS decertification yields an outcome from Staff procedure or from RALO procedure. or both, eligibility to vote in the 2013 elections for the MoA 5 g) roles may be determined before, or after, the election results are adopted by the NARALO General Assembly. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon