So why did you agree to that language instead of standing up for your beliefs and demanding that it be removed? Is this how you negotiate on behalf of the At-Large? What concessions did you obtain? There is no language regarding the need for a registrants constituency, and language supporting the need for consumer group representation was removed. What "pork" did you manage to bring back to your constituency? I see none whatsoever. If anything, you have acted to increase the relative strength of the Cross-constituency that has been opposed to the vast bulk of the positions held by the at-large. Next time that you decide to put out a statement on behalf of the ALAC at least have the decency to put the statement up for a vote. This high-handed abuse of process is not acceptable and goes well beyond a Chair's prerogatives. --- Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl@hovtek.com.au> wrote:
I'll take that one Alan... at the v3 - v4 stage of document review I flagged that some members of the ALAC will have problems with this particular POV but it made the final cut...
So *No One* from the ALAC team put that forward...
CLO
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2008 2:27 AM To: Alan Greenberg; NA Discuss Cc: cheryl@hovtek.com.au Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
Alan,
The "Joint Statement" seeks to eliminate the voting rights enjoyed by NomCom appointees in the GNSO. Who on the ALAC team that put forward this Statement agreed to that particular proposition?
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ