I was offline most of last week, and am just starting to catch up.

My position was not quite as you stated. I felt that a NARALO formation meeting was not appropriate at this time. I was quite happy to have the meeting take place with funding from ICANN, but as a meeting primarily aimed at Canadian ALSs.

I think that for a NARALO to have a chance of succeeding, there needs to be more US-based ALSs in existence and participating in the RALO creation process. I agree with John that their should be significant progress made electronically, although I believe that a face-to-face meeting prior to the formal signing would be a good thing. However, having the definitive NARALO formation meeting with so few US ALSs and only one in attendance is both premature and a recipe of failure.

For the record, I could not attend the meeting due to other commitments.

Alan

At 02/02/2007 03:14 PM, Luc Faubert wrote:

Nick,

If I understand well, you're telling us that Wendy Seltzer, John Levine and Alan Greenberg, the North American ALAC reps have decided that a NARALO formation meeting is not a good idea?

Given that their mandate includes -- at least for Wendy and John who have the NA interim seats -- "assist[ing] in the formation and qualification of At-Large Structures and Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs)" (see "Responsibilities of the Interim ALAC" at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/ ), I guess I'm missing something here.

I would appreciate explanations from our 3 ALAC reps, as I don't recall them stating their views on this list. I'm sorry if I'm mistaken,