Danny Younger wrote:
Perhaps the NARALO could discuss withdrawing from the ALAC and re-forming as a GNSO constituency. Such a move would allow us to bring user concerns and policy solutions directly to the table.
Danny, without you personally at the Summit -- though heaven knows I've practically begged you to go -- IMO it will be nearly pointless to discuss this at the GA without its main (and possibly only) proponent not present. Will you present this by teleconference, or are you expecting someone else to champion this position. From my own POV: I am not yet willing to give up on the RALO process and am heartened by the direction that the BGC has taken the ALAC review so far. I would certainly myself be interested in seeing whether we can provide a presence at the GNSO without having to disintegrate what has taken some pain to build. I have started to see some progress, but frankly I feel (maybe overly arrogantly) that NARALO has had a very positive effect on the ALAC and I want to see that continue. We have advanced and championed policy to ALAC. We have been the first and only region to empower individual users. We have been the first and only region to act on issues of representative performance. And we showed the rest of ALAC just how fast an ALS can be approved if the information and initiative exists. So maybe one could argue that ALAC needs NARALO more than NARALO needs ALAC. I personally believe that the global character of ALAC, and its potential long-term role, is too important to cast aside at this time simply because our history and geography has allowed us to move faster. - Evan