[NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2

[Alan Greenberg]

> >> Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was
> >> explicitly exempted from direct participation in the
> >> new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble
> >> which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN's external
> >> perception". After many years of slow and painful
> >> development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps
> >> towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus
> >> and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy
> >> development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in
> >> At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is
> >> beyond reason.

I sent message to the overall At-Large list in response to a message 
that Evan sent including the sentence "The irony of a document backed 
by ALAC that explicitly recommends its own disenfranchisement is, to 
me, astounding."

It similarly applies to "To explicitly exclude it from a role in 
At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason." here.

The substance was:
The terms "At-Large" and "ALAC" are typically used interchangeably by 
much of ICANN. The original document from the Business Constituency 
did in fact reference "ALAC". I am afraid that I am the devil that 
caused it to change to "At-Large".
My reasoning was that the ALAC is a properly constituted Board 
Advisory Committee within ICANN. Perhaps the lawyers and 
organization-gurus among us would have no problem with an Advisory 
body within ICANN being represented on a Supporting Organization 
Council. But I did. I thought that this simply confused the 
relationships between the various bodies. So I suggested that 
references to ALAC be changed to At-Large. Now since At-Large can 
formally speak and act solely through the RALOs and the ALAC, 
Presumably these bodies or their designates will play a significant 
role in selecting who is representing At-Large as members of an 
"At-Large Constituency" within the User stakeholder group (and thus 
affecting who sits on the GNSO council for that stakeholder group.
My intention was not to disenfranchise ALAC or At-Large, but rather 
to reserve for them the ability to influence the GNSO through 
representatives, but at the same time to NOT muddy the already 
complex ICANN organization chart.
Alan