[NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2

[Evan Leibovitch]

Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Do remember that we are not talking about selecting a person to sit 
> on the GNSO council. We are talking about how one populates a new 
> User Constituency with the larger NonCom Stakeholders Group. That 
> Constituency, by whatever arcane rules it defines, then select N 
> members to sit on the GNSO Council.
>   
Then we're back to the re-invention of ALAC that I'm trying to prevent.
Maybe our positions are not as easy to reconcile as I thought.

ALAC *is* the representative body of the end-user constituency.

> I did see (and comment on) a more recent version of the statement 
> just before I left, but it was not my place to re-distribute it.
>   
Well, then whose place was it?

The witholding of early drafts from our ability to comment, is a
significant factor in the backlash that led to the original NARALO
dissociation statement.


> I strongly feel that they ability to talk and vote without being beholden to any specific group is valuable (and I am 
> talking mainly from my experience on the GNSO) *IF* good people are appointed.
>   
Talk, yes. Vote, no.

I see no value in voting without responsibility to the community that
ALAC supposedly serves.

> And you have forgotten the Consumer Protection Constituency and the BetterBusinessBureau Constituency and the Association of Local 
> Computer Clubs Constituency and ....
>   
Those are all potential ALSs, which means they already have a place in
At-Large without needing to create more bureaucracy.

- Evan