I have to strongly agree with Evan on this one. Alan was put into that WG as the NA rep. However, since he is nom com, he felt no need to seek our input into the process, leaving the NARALO twisting in the wind. (This was all in Alan's right as a nom com.) The rest all thought that he was liaising with us but that was not the case - leading to the blow-up that occurred. In any future such cases, NARALO needs to have an elected ALAC member taking part and representing our region. I don't want to ever see our region completely neglected in this manner again. If the nom com appointees cannot step outside of the box from time to time in order to keep information flowing to their regions, then they should be in an advisory position only and not voting and we need to ensure that we have mechanisms in place to keep the flow of information going both ways. Again, please do not see this as a personal attack. It is structure that I am complaining about. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 11:44 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2 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 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists .icann.org Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------