Alan, you may be right... or not. At the very least we could have our Chair ask the ICANN General Counsel for an opinion. --- On Sat, 9/27/08, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] For consideration at the monthly meeting To: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Saturday, September 27, 2008, 1:17 PM I take issue with the statement that the NARALO could continue as an At-Large RALO and be a GNSO constituency. I am pretty sure that this would be over the line and not acceptable. It would (in my opinion) have to be an either-or thing).

Alan

This is an interesting idea...worth discussion I think. Beau ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2008 1:17 PM To: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] For consideration at the monthly meeting I take issue with the statement that the NARALO could continue as an At-Large RALO and be a GNSO constituency. I am pretty sure that this would be over the line and not acceptable. It would (in my opinion) have to be an either-or thing). Alan At 27/09/2008 12:46 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

There was a time when the ccTLD community was part of the DNSO. They weren't happy with the arrangement as matters of importance to them couldn't properly be discussed and dealt with in the DNSO environment. Ultimately they chose to leave the DNSO and formed their own Supporting Organization, the ccNSO.

I think that we need to start asking ourselves if our concerns are properly being served solely by continued participation in the ALAC. We put up issues for discussion, and invariably none of the other regions discuss those issues. Neither are our topics being discussed by the ALAC members on the ALAC discuss list. On top of everything else, we need to worry about a continued trend of ALAC non-participation that results in meetings where quorum is not attained and where our work and concerns cannot be progressed in a timely manner.

As we consider the future, one particular option stands out. The GNSO is willing to accept new constituencies.

As you know, the GNSO is the body that actually crafts new policy. All the ALAC has ever been able to do is to merely suggest to the GNSO that they consider a new policy. As I see it, the needs of the North American community would be better served as a constituent body within the GNSO than as a mere appendage to the ALAC processes.

That is not to say that the NARALO could not serve in both capacities (within the ALAC and within the GNSO). I am willing to talk about the possibility of the NARALO becoming a formal constituency within the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of the GNSO. I see it as a better way forward that would allow us to introduce motions directly to the GNSO for consideration.

This notion also comports with the intent of the Board Governance Committee recommendations to open up the Non-Commercial grouping within the GNSO so that it doesn't remain the sole province of the NCUC.

Let's talk about this.

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.