Let's talk about how the ALAC generates a "Statement" and what our NA reps on the ALAC can do to fix this problem. We saw an abuse of process in the ALAC Statement on the JPA which was put forward without an ALAC vote (for that matter, it was put forward even without ALAC-member consensus: "Whilst this document is not tendered to you as formally constituted consensus of the views of all of the At-Large community on this important matter..."). We recently have witnessed the ALAC "Joint Statement" that once again was not subject to a vote of the ALAC nor was it a product of any wide-reaching discussions. Further, almost all recent ALAC documents have had a public comment period of extremely limited duration: The (non-joint) ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements had a one week window for comments; the Statement on the Draft Operating Plan as well as the Statement on Travel Policy had a 10-day window for comment. Frankly, this sucks. Even ICANN routinely allows 3-4 weeks for comments. I see the same types of things going on in the NCUC where members are given one or two days maximum to elicit organizational feedback in response to a position "already" taken by the leadership. More and more, we are witnessing the emergence of private fiefdoms wherein just one or two people within a constituent group call the shots and generate the Statements without any truly broad consultation. We don't need this kind of pattern to take hold in the ALAC. It's time for our reps to take a principled stand on this issue and to insist on proper methodologies; otherwise, the NARALO should formally consider seceding from the ALAC. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ